WOBO: Search for words and phrases in the texts here...

, a Latin tragic poet, the son of a freed-man, and according to St. Jerome, born in the consulship of Hostilius Mancinus and Attilius Serranus, in the year of Rome 583; but there appears somewhat of confusion and perplexity in this chronology. He made himself known before the death of Pacuvius, a dramatic piece of his being exhibited the same year that Pacuvius brought one upon the stage, the latter being then 80 years of age, and Accius only 30. We do not know the name of this piece of Accius, but the titles of several of his tragedies are mentioned by various authors. He wrote on the most celebrated stories which had been represented on the Athenian stage, as Andromache, Andromeda, Atreus, Clytemnestra, Medea, Meleager, Philocletes, the civil wars of Thebes, Tereus, the Troades, &c. He did not always, however, take his subjects from the Grecian story; for he composed one dramatic piece wholly Roman: it was entitled Brutus, and related to the expulsion of the Tarquins. It is affirmed by some, that he wrote also comedies; which is not unlikely, if he was the author of two pieces, “The Wedding,” and “The Merchant,” which have been ascribed to him. He did not confine himself to dramatic writing; for he left other productions, particularly his Annals, mentioned by Macrobius, Priscian, Festus, and Nonius Marcellus. Decimus Brutus, who was consul in the year of Rome 615, and had the honour of a triumph for several victories gained in Spain, was his particular friend and patron. This general was so highly pleased with the verses which Accius wrote in his praise, that he had them inscribed at the entrance of the temples and monuments raised out of the spoils of the vanquished. Though this might proceed from a principle of vanity, and may not be so much a proof of his affection for the poet as his love of applause; yet it proves that Brutus had an opinion of Accius’s poetry, and Brutus was far from being a contemptible judge. He has been censured for writing in too harsh a style, but was in all other respects esteemed a very great poet. Aulus Gellius tells Us, that Accius, being on his way to Asia, passed through Tarentum, where he paid a visit to Pacuvius, and read to him his play of Atreus; that Pacuvius told him his verse was lofty and sonorous, but somewhat harsh and crude. “It is as you observe,” said Accius; “nor am I sorry for it, since my future productions will be better upon this account; for as in fruit so in geniuses, those which are at first harsh and sour, become mellow and agreeable; but such as are at first soft and sweet, grow in a short time not ripe, but rotten.” Accius was so much esteemed by the public, 'that a comedian was punished for only mentioning his name on the stage. Cicero speaks with great derision of one Accius who had written a history; and, as our author wrote annals, some insist that he is the person censured; but as Cicero himself, Horace, Quintilian, Ovid, and Paterculus, have spoken of our author with so much applause, he cannot be supposed the same whom the Roman orator censures with so much severity. Nothing remains of Accius, but some few fragments collected by Robert Stephens, and the titles of his pieces. He is supposed to have died at an advanced age, but the precise time is not known.

, LL. D. an English divine and civilian, of whose birth and family we have no account. During the reign of queen Mary, he travelled in France and Italy, where he studied the civil law. In 1560, he was public orator at Cambridge; and, in the following year, created doctor of laws. In 1562, he was admitted an advocate in the Arches court; and afterwards lived in the family of archbishop Parker, who gave him a prebend, probably that of Southwell. In 1567, he was vicar-general to Home, bishop of Winchester; and, in 1575, the archbishop of Canterbury permitted him to hold the rectory of Elington, alias Wroughton, in the diocese of Sarum, with any other benefice. In 1576, he was appointed master of the faculties, and judge of the prerogative court, in Ireland, after he had been turned out of all the situations he held in England, on account of his dissolute conduct. When, he died is not known. He wrote, in his better days:

, a Socratic philosopher, in the fourth century B. C. was an Athenian of mean birth, but discovered an early thirst after knowledge, and, though oppressed by poverty, devoted himself to the pursuit of wisdom, under the tuition of Socrates. When he first became his disciple, he told Socrates, that the only thing which it was in his power to present him, in acknowledgment of his kind instructions, was himself. Socrates replied, that he accepted and valued the present, but that he hoped to render it more valuable by culture. Æschines adhered to this master with unalterable fidelity and perseverance, and enjoyed his particular friendship. Having spent many years in Athens, without being able to rise above the poverty of his birth, he determined, after the example of Plato and others, to visit the court of Dionysius, the tyrant of Sicily, who at this time had the reputation of being a general patron of philosophers. On his arrival at Syracuse, though slighted on account of his poverty by Plato, he was introduced to the prince by Aristippus, and was liberally rewarded for his Socratic dialogues. He remained in Sicily till the expulsion of the tyrant, and then returned to Athens. Here, not daring to become a public rival of Plato or Aristippus, he taught philosophy in private, and received payment for his instructions. Afterwards, in order to provide himself with a more plentiful subsistence, he appeared as a public orator; and Demosthenes, probably because he was jealous of his abilities (for he excelled in eloquence), became his opponent. The time when he died is not known. He wrote seven Socratic dialogues, in the true spirit of his master, on temperance, moderation, humanity, integrity, and other virtues, under the titles, Miltiades, Callias, Rhinon, Aspasia, Alcis, Axiochus, and Telauges. Of these only three are extant, the best edition of which is by Le Clerc, Amsterdam, 1711, 8vo. There is another valuable edition, with the notes of Horneus, Leovard. 1788, 8vo.

, a celebrated Greek orator, contemporary with Demosthenes, to whom he was little inferior, was born at Athens 327 years B. C. He is said to have been of distinguished birth, although Demosthenes reports that he was the son of a courtezan: but whatever his birth may have been, his talents were very considerable. His declamations against Philip king of Macedon, first brought him into notice. Demosthenes and he were rivals; but Demosthenes having vanquished him in a solemn debate, he went to Rhodes, and opened a school there, beginning his lectures by reading the two orations which occasioned his removal thither. When they excessively applauded that of Demosthenes, he was generous enough to say, “What would you have thought if you had heard him thunder out the words himself” He afterwards removed to Samos, where he died at the age of 75. There are only three of his orations extant, which however are so very beautiful, that Fabricius compares them to the three graces. One is against Timarchus his accuser, whom he treated so severely, as to make him weary of life; and some have said, that he did actually lay violent hands upon himself. Another is an “Apology” for himself against Demosthenes, who had accused him of perfidy in an “Embassy” to Philip. The third “against Ctesiphon,” who had decreed the golden crown to Demosthenes. This excellent, oration, together with that of Demosthenes against it, was translated by Cicero into Latin, as St. Jerome and Sidonius inform us. The three orations were published by Aldus 1513, and by Henry Stephens among other orators, 1575, in Greek. They are, as might have been necessarily expected, inserted in Reiske’s valuable edition of the Grecian orators. There are also attributed to Æschines twelve epistles, which Taylor has added to his edition of the orations of Demosthenes and Æschines. They have also been published, with various readings, by I. Samuel Sammet, Leipsic, 1772, 8vo. Wolfius has given them in his edition of Demosthenes, with a Latin version and notes, 1604; and this edition is most esteemed. The abbe Auger published a French translation of Æschines and Demosthenes, in 6 vols. 8vo, Paris, 1789 and 1804. Of his contest with Demosthenes, Dr. Blair gives this opinion Demosthenes appears to great advantage, when contrasted with JEschines, in the celebrated oration pro Corona. Æschines was his rival in business, and his personal enemy; and one of the most distinguished orators of that age. But when we read the two orations, Æschines is feeble in comparison of Demosthenes, and makes much less impression on the mind. His reasonings concerning the law that was in question, are indeed very subtile; but his invective against Demosthenes is general, and ill supported; whereas Demosthenes is a torrent, that nothing can resist. He bears down his antagonist with violence; he draws his character in the strongest colours; and the particular merit of that oration is, that all the descriptions in it are highly picturesque.

, a famous orator, born at Nismes, fifteen or sixteen years B. C. and flourished under Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. He was elected to the prsetorship; but, not being afterwards promoted according to his ambitious expectations, and desirous at any rate to advance himself, he turned informer against Claudia Pulchra, cousin of Agrippina, and pleaded himself in that affair. Having gained this cause, he was ranked amongst the first orators, and got into favour with Tiberius, who hated Agrippina: but this princess not thinking Domitius the author of this process, did not entertain the least resentment against him. The encomiums passed by the emperor on the eloquence of Domitius, made him now eagerly pursue the profession of an orator; so that he was seldom without some accusation or defence, by which he acquired a greater reputation for his eloquence than his probity. In the 779th year of Rome, he carried on an accusation against Claudia Pulchra; and the year following, Quintilius Varus her son was impeached by him and Publius Dolabella. It was not surprising that Afer, who had been poor for many years, and squandered the money got by former impeachments, should return to this practice; but it was matter of great surprise that one who was a relation of Varus, and of such an illustrious family as that of Publius Dolabella, should associate with this informer. Afer had a high reputation as an orator for a considerable time, but this he lost by continuing to plead when age had impaired the faculties of his mind.

, a celebrated Roman orator in the time of Augustus, was a native of Novarre, and advanced to the office of sedile, but he left it on account of an insult offered to him by some persons who had lost their suit. He then went to Rome, where he associated himself v.-ith Munacius Plancus, the orator, but rivalship soon parted them, and he formed a separate auditory, and at length ventured to plead causes. In this office, he met with a disgrace which obliged him to renounce it. In the warmth of pleading he one day made use of an expression which he meant only as a nourish: “Swear,” said he to his adversary, “by the ashes and by the memory of your fathers, and you shall gain your cause.” After he had amplified this thought, the advocate on the opposite side coolly replied, “We accept the condition;” and the judges admitting the oath, Albutius lost his cause, and his temper, at least, if not his credit. We hear no more of him, until he returned to Novarre, old and afflicted with an abscess, when he called the people together, and explained to them in a long speech the reasons that hindered him from desiring to live, and so starved himself to death. Seneca the father gives him the singular character of one who could neither bear nor offer an injury. A passage in Quintilian seems to intimate that he composed a “Treatise on Rhetorick.”

, historian, orator, and poet, native of Agen, in the fourth century, wrote the history of Julian surnamed the apostate, and that of Sallust, consul and praefect of the Gauls under that emperor, which no longer exists; for we have nothing of him but an epigram on Homer and Virgil, in the Corpus Poetarum of Maitv taire, London, 1714, 2 vols. folio.

Charlemagne often solicited him to return to court, but he excused himself, and remained at Tours until his death, May 19, 804. He was buried in the church of St. Martin, where a Latin epitaph of twenty-four verses, of his own, composition, was inscribed upon his tomb. This epitaph is preserved by father Labbe, in his Thesaurus Epitaphiorum, printed at Paris 1686. He understood the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages extremely well; was an excellent orator, philosopher, mathematician, and, according to William of Malmesbury, the best English divine alter Bede and Adhelme. How greatly France was indebted to him for her flourishing state of learning in that and the following ages, we learn from a German poet, cited by Camden in his Britannia:

Dr. Allix enjoyed a very uncommon share of health and spirits, as appears by his latest writings, in which there is not only all the erudition, but all the quickness and vivacity that appeared in his earliest pieces. Those who knew him, derived the same pleasure from his conversation, that the learned found in his productions; for, with an extensive share of learning, he had a remarkable liveliness of temper, and expressed himself on the driest subjects with much sprightliness, and in a manner out of the common road. He was consulted by the greatest men of his age, on the deepest and most intricate parts of learning, and received the praise of the ablest critics of his time. It was not any single branch of literature, or a few related to each other, that could occupy his thoughts, but the whole circle of sciences which fall under the cognizance of a general scholar and sound divine. His sermons shew him to have been an admirable orator, and at the same time a profound scholar, and the several ancient authors whose writings he published, testify his skill in criticism, and his perfect acquaintance with antiquity. His treatises on ecclesiastical history discover a vast fund of reading, and an exact comprehension of his subject, with a warm zeal for the Protestant religion. He laboured also to serve it by the tracts he rescued froro oblivion, to shew, which they did effectually, that the charge of novelty on which the Papists insisted so loudly, was not only unreasonable, but entirely groundless. His thorough acquaintance with Hebrew and Rabbinical learning was displayed in his laborious performance in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, in which his sincerity is as conspicuous as his learning. If in the prosecution of those deep and recondite studies, he sometimes mistook his way, and erred in his computations, as when he fixed the year of Christ’s second coming at 1720, it was no more than had befallen the greatest men who have travelled this road before him, particularly Joseph Mede and bishop Lloyd; neither have these instances convinced other eminent men that the roads are impassable, since the very learned dean Prideaux, and the sagacious sir Isaac Newton, have devoted many of their hours to the like inquiries. Dr. Allix continued his application to the last, and died at London, Feb. 21, 1717, in the seventy-­sixth year of his age, leaving behind him the reputation of a man, equally assiduous in the right discharge of all the offices of public and private life, and every way as amiable for his virtues and social qualities, as venerable from his uprightness and integrity, and celebrated for his various and profound learning.

It remains that we conclude this article with a short notice of his death. In the year 392, Valentinian the emperor being assassinated by the contrivance of Argobastus, and Eugenius usurping the empire, Ambrose was obliged to leave Milan, but returned the year following, when Eugenius was defeated. He died at Milan the 4th of April, 397; and was buried in the great church at Milan, He wrote several works, the most considerable of which is that “De officiis,” a discourse, divided into three books, upon the duties of the clergy. It appears to have been written several years after he had been bishop, and very probably about the year 390 or 391, when peace was restored to the church, after the death of the tyrant Maximus, He has imitated in these three books the design and disposition of Cicero’s piece De officiis. He confirms, says Mr. Du Pin, the good maxims which that orator has advanced, he corrects those which are imperfect, he refutes those which are false, and adds a great many others which are more excellent, pure, and elevated. He is concise and sententious in his manner of writing, and full of turns of wit; his terms are well chosen, and his expressions noble, and he diversifies his subjects by an admirable copiousness of thought and language. He is very ingenious in giving an easy and natural turn to every thing he treats, and is frequently not without strength and pathos. This is part of the character which Du Pin gives him as a writer; but Erasmus tells us that he has many quaint and affected sentences, and is frequently very obscure; and it is certain that his writings are intermixed with many strange and peculiar opinions; derived, as we have already remarked, from his early attachment to the manner of Origen. He maintained, that all men indifferently are to pass through a fiery trial at the last day; that even the just are to suffer it, and to be purged from their sins, but the unjust are to continue in for ever; that the faithful will be raised gradually at the last day, according to the degree of their particular merit; that the bow which God promised Noah to place in the firmament after the deluge, as a sign that he never intended to drown the world again, was not to be understood of the rainbow, which can never appear in the night, but some visible token of the Almighty. He carries the esteem of virginity and celibacy so far, that he seems to regard matrimony as an indecent thing. But it must be observed with regard to all those selections of opinions, that great injustice has been done to his memory by frauds and interpolations, and entire works have been attributed to him, which he never wrote. His works, indeed, are divided into, 1. Those that are genuine. 2. Those that are doubtful. 3. Those that are fictitious: and 4. Those that are not extant. Paulinus, who was his amanuensis, wrote his life, and dedicated it to St. Augustin; it is prefixed to St. Ambrose’s works; the best edition of which is reckoned to be that published by the benedictine monks, in two volumes in folio, at Paris, in 1686, and 1690. His life was also published in 1678, by Godfrey Herment.

, of Clazomene, one of the most eminent of the ancient philosophers, was born in the first year of the seventieth olympiad, B. C. 500, and was a disciple of Anaximenes. He inherited from his parents a patrimony which might have secured him independence and distinction at home; but such was his thirst after knowledge, that, about the twentieth year of his age, he left his country, without taking proper precautions concerning his estate, and went to reside at Athens. Here he diligently applied himself to the study of eloquence and poetry, and was particularly conversant with the works of Homer, whom be admired as the best preceptor, not only in style, but in morals. Engaging afterwards in speculations concerning nature, the fame of the Milesian school induced him to leave Athens, that he might attend upon the public instructions of Anaximenes. Under him he became acquainted with his doctrines, and those of his predecessors, concerning natural bodies, and the origin of things. So ardently did he engage in these inquiries, that he said concerning himself that he was born to contemplate the heavens. Visiting his native city, he found that, whilst he had been busy in the pursuit of knowledge, his estate had run to waste, anct remarked, that to this ruin he owed his prosperity. One of his fellow-citizens complaining that he, who was so well qualified, both by rank and ability, for public offices, had shown so little regard for his country, he replied, “My first care is for my country,” pointing to heaven. After remaining for some years at Miletus, he returned to Athens, and there taught philosophy in private. Among his pupils were several eminent men, particularly the tragedian Euripides, and the orator and statesman Pericles; to whom some add Socrates and Themistocles.

, the son of Aristocles of Lampsacus, an orator, was the disciple of Diogenes the cynic, and of Zoilus of Amphipolis, the absurd critic on Homer. He was preceptor to Alexander of Macedon, and followed him to the wars. When the king was incensed against the people of Lampsacus, because they had taken the part of the Persians, and threatened them with grievous punishments, he saved them by a trick. The people, in danger of losing their wives, children, and country, sent Anaxixnenes to intercede for them, and Alexander knowing the cause of his coming, swore by the gods, that he would do the very reverse of what he desired of him. Upon this Anaximenes said to him, “Grant me the favour, O king, to enslave the wives and children of the people of Lampsacus, to burn their temples, and lay their city even with the ground.”, Alexander, not being able to retract his oath, pardoned Lampsacus against his will. Anaximenes revenged himself on his enemy Theopompus the son of Damostratus in a manner not much to his credit. Being a sophist, and able to imitate the style of sophists, he wrote a book against the Athenians and Lacedaemonians, carefully framing a railing story, and setting the name of Theopompus to it, sent it to those cities. Hence arose an universal hatred of Theopompus throughout all Greece. Anaximenes is said to be the inventor of speaking ex tempore, according to Suidas, although it is not easy to comprehend what he means by that being an invention. He wrote the lives of Philip and Alexander, and twelve books on the early history of Greece, but none of these have descended to us.

, an Athenian orator, the son of Leogoras, was born at Athens in the year 468 B. C. He was early employed in public affairs, and was one of those who in 445 B. C. negociated the peace of thirty years with the Lacedæmonians, which preceded the Peloponuesian war. Some time after he had the joint command with Glaucou of a fleet which the Athenians sent to the assistance of the Corey rians against the Corinthians. His connexion with Alcibiades, and other young men, gave occasion to a suspicion that he had profaned the Eleusinian mysteries, and from this he escaped by accusing certain persons. He was afterwards banished and recalled, and twice in danger of his life from popular commotions. Four of his orations, in a simple 1 unornamented style, have descended to us, although not without some suspicion of their authenticity. They are published in the “Oratores Græci veteres,” of H. Stephens, 1575, fol.; and in those of Reiske.

, or Andradius, a learned Portuguese, was born in 1528, at Coimbra, and distinguished himself at the council of Trent, where king Sebastian sent him as one of his divines. He pveached before the assembly the second Sunday after Easter in 1562: nor was he contented with the service he did in explaining those points upon which he was consulted, but he employed his pen in defence of the canons of the council, in a treatise entitled “Orthodoxarum explicationum, lib. x.” Venice, 1564, 4to, a very rare edition, and more correct than that of Cologn of the same date. It forms a reply to a book published by Chemnitius, against the doctrine of the Jesuits before the close of the council of Trent; and as Chemnitius took this opportunity of writing a very large work, entitled “Examen concilii Tridentini,” Andrada thought himself obliged to defend his first piece against this learned adversary. He composed therefore a book, which his two brothers published after his death, at Lisbon, in 1578, 4to, entitled “Defensio Tridentinse fidei catholicse quinque libris comprehensa, adversus ha^reticorum calumnias, et praesertim Martini Chernnitii.” This work is likewise very difficult to be met with. There is scarce any catholic author who has been more quoted by the protestants than he, because he maintained the opinions of Zuinglius, Erasmus, &c. concerning the salvation of the heathens. Andrada was esteemed an excellent preacher: his sermons were published in three parts, the second of which was translated into Spanish by Benedict de Alarcon. The Bibliotheque of the Spanish writers does not mention all his works; the book he wrote concerning the pope’s authority, during the council (“De conciliorum autoritate,”) in 1562, is omitted. The pope’s legates being very well pleased with this work, sent it to cardinal Borromeo; the court of Rome also approved it extremely, and the pope returned the author thanks in a very obliging manner; from which circumstances it will not be difficult to appreciate its merits. He stands indeed very high among popish writers, and many encomiums have been bestowed upon him: Osorius, in his preface to the “Ort&odox explanations of Andradius,” gives him the character of a man of wit, vast application, great knowledge in the languages, with all the zeal and eloquence necessary to a good preacher; and Rosweidus says, that he brought to the council of Trent the understanding of a most profound divine, and the eloquence of a consummate orator.

, or Publius Faustus Andrelinus, a modern Latin poet, was born at Forli, in Romagnia, about the middle of the fifteenth century. Having composed in his youth, at Rome, four books of poetry under the name of “Amours,” he was honoured with the poetic crown; in 1488 he came to Paris, and the following year was appointed professor of poetry and philosophy, and Lewis XII. of France made him his poet-laureat. He was likewise poet to the queen. His pen, however, was not wholly employed in making verses, for he wrote also moral and proverbial letters in prose, to which Beatus Rhenanus added a preface, and commends them “as learned, witty, and useful; for though,” says he, “this author, in some of his works, after the manner of poets, is a little too loose and wanton, yet here he appears like a modest and elegant orator.” John Arboreus, a divine of Paris, published comments upon them. Andrelini wrote also several poetical distichs in Latin, which were printed with a commentary by Josse Badius Ascenscius, and translated verse for verse into French by one Stephen Prive. John Paradin had before translated into French stanzas of four verses, an hundred distichs, which Andrelim had addressed to John Ruze, treasurer-general of the finances of king Charles VIII. in order to thank him for a considerable pension.

The earl of Anglesey has been very variously characterised; Anthony Wood represents him as an artful time-server; by principle, a Calvinist; by policy, a favourer of the Papists. Burnet paints him as a tedious and ungraceful orator, and as a grave, abandoned, and corrupt man, whom no party would trust. Our account is taken from the Biog. Bntannica, which steers an impartial course. Lord Orford, in his “Noble Authors,” is disposed to unite the severities of Wood and Burnet, but what he asserts is rather flippant than convincing.

, an Athenian orator, called the Rhamnusian from the place of his birth, Rhamnus in Attica, is said to have been the first who reduced eloquence to an art, and who taught and harangued for hire. Thucydides was one of his disciples. He wrote several works. Sixteen of his orations were printed in the collection of the ancient Greek orators by Stephens in 1.575, fol. and before that by Aid us in 1513, fol. His death is said to have taken place in the year 411 B. C. He was condemned to die for favouring the party of the four hundred tyrants at Athens, and on this occasion made an able but unsuccessful defence of his conduct.

, a Greek philosopher, and founder of the sect of the Cynics, was born at Athens in 423 B. C. His father was of the same name with him, and his mother was either a Thracian or a Phrygian, but he appears to have despised the honours of family, and made them the topics of ridicule, a practice not uncommon with those whose origin is mean or doubtful. He appears to have served in the army, and behaved with great courage in the battle of Tanagra. His first preceptor was Gorgias the orator, from whom he imbibed a florid and showy manner, but attained afterwards much eminence under Socrates, and advised his scholars to become his fellow-disciples in the school of that celebrated philosopher. Laertius informs us that there were ten volumes of his works; but a collection of apophthegms only remain, some of which are excellent. Modern wit perhaps affords few better hits than what he bestowed on the Athenians, when he advised them to elect asses to be horses. This they said was absurd; “and yet,” he replied, “you chuse those for generals who have nothing to recommend them but your votes.” Antisthencs is said to have been a man of great austerity, and a most rigid disciplinarian. Some of his contemporaries give him a very high character in other respects, and his life, upon the whole, appears to have escaped the imputation of the sensual vices practised by many of the ancient philosophers.

, a Roman orator, highly celebrated by Cicero, after rising successively through the several preparatory offices in the commonwealth, was made consul in the year of Rome 653; and then governor of Cilicia, in quality of proconsul, where he performed so many great exploits in the army that he obtained the honour of a triumph. In order to improve his talent for eloquence, he became a scholar to the greatest men at Rhodes and Athens, in his way to Cilicia and on h/s return to Rome. Afterwards he was appointed censor, and discharged the office with great reputation; he carried his cause before the people against Marcus Duronius, who had preferred an accusation of bribery against him, in revenge for Antonius’s having erased his name out of the list of senators; which this wise censor had done, because Duronius, when tribune of the people, had abrogated a law, which restrained immoderate expence in feasts. He was one of the greatest orators ever known at Rome; and it was owing to him, according to Cicero, that Rome might be considered as a rival even to Greece itself in the art of eloquence. He defended, amongst many others, Marcus Aquilius; and moved the judges in so sensible a manner, by the tears he shed, and the scars he shewed upon the breast of his client, that he carried his cause. Cicero has given us the character of his eloquence and of his action. He never would publish any of his pleadings, that he might not, as he said, be proved to say in one cause, what might be contrary to what he should advance in another. He affected to be a man of no learning, which Bayle supposes he did not so much out of modesty as policy; finding himself established in the reputation of a great orator, he thought the world would admire him more, if they supposed this eloquence owing entirely to the strength of his natural genius, rather than the fruit of a long application to the study of Greek authors. And with regard to the judges, he thought nothing more proper to produce a good effect, than to make them believe that he pleaded without any preparation, and to conceal from them all the artifice of rhetoric. But yet he was learned, and not unacquainted with the best Grecian authors, of which there are proofs in several passages of Cicero. This appearance, however, of modesty and his many other qualifications, rendered him no less dear to persons of distinction, than his eloquence made him universally admired. He was unfortunately killed during the disturbances raised at Rome by Marius and Cinna; and his head was exposed before the rostrum, a place which he had adorned with his triumphal spoils. This happened in the year of Rome 667.

, the sophist, was a native of Adriani, a small town in Mysia, and was disciple of Polemon the rhetorician of Smyrna, son of Eudaimon, a philosopher and priest of Jupiter in his own country. He also heard Herod at Athens, and Aristocles at Pergamus. He is supposed to have flourished about the year 176 of the Christian era. He appears to have been a good writer and an able orator. He is credulous, indeed, and superstitious, but there are many excellent passages in his writings in favour of truth and virtue, and he seems to have considered private virtue as indispensable to public character. A man of such eminence was no doubt an ornament to the heathen religion; and his eloquent hymns to the gods, and his other orations, must have had powerful attractions. To the city of Smyrna he was a great benefactor, for when, it was almost destroyed by an earthquake, he so pathetically represented their calamities, in a letter to the emperor Marcus, that this prince could not forbear weeping at some parts of it, and presently promised to restore the city. Besides this letter, he published a monody, bewailing the unhappy circumstances of the people of Smyrna, and after that wrote an oration, or epistle, in the year 173, congratulating tjiem on their restoration. In this last he celebrates not only the favour and liberality of the emperor, but likewise the generous compassion of many others, among whom Tillemont thinks he glanced at the Christians. Lardner has produced several passages from him, among his “Testimonies of ancient Heathens.” Aristides’s constitution was infirm, yet it is supposed he reached his sixtieth or seventieth year. The best edition of his works was published by Dr. Jebb, 2vols. 4to, Oxford, 1722—30.

The master of St. John’s college at this time, Nicholas Medcalf, was a great encourager of learning, and his tutor, Mr. Hugh Fitzherbert, had not only much knowledge, but also a graceful and insinuating method of imparting it to his pupils. To a genius naturally prone to learning, Mr. Ascham added a spirit of emulation, which induced him to study so hard, that, while a mere boy, he made a great progress in polite learning, and became exceedingly distinguished amongst the most eminent wits in the university. He took his degree of B. A. on the twenty-eighth of February, 1534, when eighteen years* of age; and on the twenty-third of March following, was elected fellow of his college by the interest of the master, though Mr. Ascham’s propensity to the reformed religion had made it difficult for Dr. Medcalf, who, according to Ascham' s account, was a man of uncommon liberality, to carry his good intention into act. These honours served only to excite him to still greater vigilance in his studies, particularly in that of the Greek tongue, wherein he attained an excellency peculiar to himself, and read therein, both publicly for the university, and privately in his college, with universal applause. At the commencement held after the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, in 1536, he was inaugurated M. A. being then twenty-one years old. By this time many of his pupils came to be taken notice of for their extraordinary proficiency, and William Grindall, one of them, at the recommendation of Mr. Ascham, was chosen by sir John Cheke, to be tutor to the lady Elizabeth. As he did not accept this honour himself, he probably was delighted with an academical life, and was not very desirous of changing it for one at court. His affection for his friends, though it filled him with a deep concern for their interests, and a tender regard for their persons, yet could not induce him to give up his understanding, especially in points of learning. For this reason he did not assent to the new pronunciation of the Greek, which his intimate friend, sir John Cheke, laboured, by his authority, to introduce throughout the university; yet when he had thoroughly examined, he came over to his opinion, and defended the new pronunciation with that zeal and vivacity which gave a peculiar liveliness to all his writings. In July 1542, he supplicated the university of Oxford to be incorporated M. A. but it & doubtful whether this was granted. To divert him after the fatigue of severer studies, he addicted himself to archcry, which innocent amusement drew upon him the censure of some persons, against whose opinion he wrote a small treatise, entitled “Toxophilus,” published in 1544, and dedicated to king Henry VIII. then about to undertake his expedition against Boulogne. This work was very kindly received and the king, at the recommendation of sir William Paget, was pleased to settle a pension of ten pounds (now probably in value one hundred) upon him, which, after that prince’s death, was for some time discontinued, but at length restored to him, during pleasure, by Edward VI. and confirmed by queen Mary, with an additional ten pounds per annum. Among other accomplishments he was remarkable for writing a very fine hand, and taught that art to prince Edward, the lady Elizabeth, the two brothers Henry and Charles, dukes of Suffolk, and several other persons of distinction, and for many years wrote all the letters of the university to the king, and to the great men at court. The same year that he published his book he was chosen university- orator, in the room of Mr. John Cheke, an office which gratified his passion for an academical life, and afforded him frequent opportunities of displaying his superior eloquence in the Latin and Greek tongues. In 1548, on the death of his pupil, Mr. Grindal, he was sent for to court, in order to instruct the lady Elizabeth in the knowledge of the learned languages, which duty he discharged for two years, with great reputation to himself, and with much satisfaction to his illustrious pupil. For some time he enjoyed as great comfort at court as he had done at college but at length, on account of some illjudged and ill-founded whispers, Mr.Ascham took such a distaste at some in the lady Elizabeth’s family, that he left her a little abruptly, which he afterwards heartily repented, and took great and not unsuccessful pains, to be restored to her good graces. On his returning to the university, he resumed his studies, and the discharge of his office of public orator, his circumstances being at this time tolerably easy, by considerable assistance from lovers of learning, and a small pension allowed him by king Edward, and another by archbishop Lee. In the summer of 1550, he went, into Yorkshire to visit his family and relations, but was recalled to court in order to attend sir Richard Morysine, then going ambassador to the emperor Charles V. Imia journey to London he visited the lady Jane Gray, at er father’s house at Broad gate in Leicestershire, with whm he had been well acquainted at court, and for whomie had already a very high esteem. In September followig, he embarked with sir R. Morysine for Germany, wherehe remained three years, during which he left nothing omitsd which might serve to perfect his knowledge of men as veil as books. As he travelled with an ambassador, he thought it became him to make politics some part of his study, ad how well he succeeded appears from a short but very cirious tract which he wrote, concerning Germany, and of he affairs of Charles V. He was also of great use to the anbassador, not only in the management of his public concerns, but as the companion of his private studies, vihich were for the most part in the Greek language. He read Herodotus, Sophocles, Euripides, and Demosthenes, three days in a week the other three he copied the letters which the ambassador sent to England. While thus employed, his friends in England, particularly sir William Cecil, procured for him the post of Latin secretary to king Edward. But this he did not enjoy long, being recalled on account of the king’s death, on which occasion he lost all his places, together with his pension, and all expectation of obtaining any farther favours at court. In this situation he was at first hopeless, and retired to the university to indulge his melancholy. But the prospect quickly became more promising. His friend the lord Paget mentioned him to Stephen Gardiner bishop of Winchester, lord high chancellor, who very frankly received him into his favour, notwithstanding Mr. Ascham remained firm to his religion, which was so far from being a secret to the bishop, that he had many malicious informations given him on that head, which he treated with contempt, and abated nothing in his friendship to our author. He first procured him the re-establishment of his pension, which consisted of but ten pounds a year, with the addition of ten pounds a year more he then fixed him in the post of Latin secretary to the king and queen, and, by her majesty’s interest and his own, kept him in the fellowship of St. John’s, and in his place of orator to the university, to Midsummer 1554. Soon after his admission to his new employment, he gave art extraordinary specimen of his abilities and diligence, by composing and transcribing, with his usual elegance, in three days, forty-seven letters to princes and personaes, of whom cardinals were the lowest. He was likewe patronised by cardinal Pole, who, though he wrote e;gant Latin, yet sometimes made use of Mr. Ascharn’s pn, particularly in translating his speech to the parliaBsnt, which he made as the pope’s legate, and of which Unslation he sent a copy to the pope. On the first of June 1554, Ascham married Mrs. Margaret Howe, a lady of a rood family, with whom he had a very, considerable fortme, and of whom he gives an excellent character, in one oi his letters to his friend Sturmius. His favour with qteen Mary’s ministers was not less than what he enjoyed frtm the queen herself, who conversed with him often, and was much pleased with his company. On her death, having been previously reconciled to the lady Elizabeth, he was immediately distinguished by her, now queen, and from his time until his death he was constantly at court, very fully employed in the discharge of his two great offices, the cne of secretary for the Latin tongue, and the other of tutor to her majesty in the learned languages, reading some hours with her every day. This interest at court would have procured a man of a more active temper many considerable advantages; but such was either Ascham’s indolence, or disinterestedness, that he never asked any thing, either for himself or his family, though he received several favours unsolicited, particularly the prebend of Westwang in the church of York, in 1559, which he held to his death. Yet however indifferent to his own affairs, he was very far from being negligent in those of his friends, for whom he was ready to do any good office in his power, and in nothing readier than in parting with his money, though he never had much to spare. He always associated with the greatest men of the court, and having once in conversation heard the best method of educating youth debated with some heat, he from thence took occasion, at the request of sir Richard Sackville, to write his “Schoolmaster,” which he lived to finish, but not to publish. His application to study rendered him infirm throughout his whole life, and at last he became so weak, that he was unable to read in the evenings or at night; to make amends for which, he rose very early in the morning. The year before his death he was seized with a hectic, which brought him very low and then, contrary to his former custom, relapsing into night-studies, in order to complete a Latin poem with which he designed to present the queen on the new year, he, on the 23d of December 1568, was attacked by an aguish ‘distemper, which threatened him with immediate death. He was visited in his last sickness by Dr. Alexander Nowell, dean of St. ’Paul’s, and Graves, vicar of St. Sepulchre’s, who found him perfectly calm and chearful, in which disposition he continued to the 30th of the same month, when he expired. On the 4th of January following, he was interred according to his own directions, in the most private manner, in St. Sepulchre’s church, his funeral sermon being preached by the before-mentioned Dr. Nowell. He was universally lamented, and even the queen herself not only shewed great concern, but was also pleased to say, that phg had rather have lost ten thousand pounds than her tutor Ascham. His only failing was too great a propensity to dice and cock-fighting, which the learned bishop Nicolson would persuade us to be an unfounded calumny; but as it is mentioned by Camden, as well as some other contemporary writers, it seems impossible to deny it. It is certain that he died in very indifferent circumstances, as may appear from the address of his widow to sir William Cecil, in her dedication of his “Schoolmaster,” wherein she says expressly, that Mr. Ascham left her a poor widow with many orphans; and Dr. Grant, in his dedication of Ascham’s letters to queen Elizabeth, pathetically recommends to her his pupil, Giles Ascham, the son of our author, representing, that be had lost his father, who should have taken care of his education, and that he was left poor and without friends. Besides this son he had two others, Dudley and Sturmur, of whom we know little. Lord Burleigh took Giles Ascham under his protection, by whose interest he was recommended to a scholarship of St. John’s, and afterwards by the queen’s mandate, to a fellowship of Trinity college in Cambridge, and was celebrated, as well as his father, for his admirable Latin style in epistolary writings.

On the death of his father-in-law, sir William Dugdale, Jan. 10, 1686, Mr. Ashmole declined a second time the office of garter king at arms, and recommended his brother Dugdale, in which, though he did not fully succeed, yet he procured him the place of Norroy. This was one of the last public acts of his life, the remainder of which was spent in an honourable retirement to the day of his demise, which happened on May 18, 1692, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. He was undoubtedly a great benefactor to, and patron of, learning. His love of chemistry led him to preserve many valuable Mss. relating to that science, besides those that he caused to be printed and published. He was deeply skilled in history and antiquities, as sufficiently appears by his learned and laborious works, both printed and manuscripts. He was likewise a generous encourager and protector of such ingenious and learned men as were less fortunate in the world than himself, as appears by his kindness to sir'George Wharton in the worst of times, his respect to the memory of his friend Mr. John Booker, and the care he took in the education of the late eminent Dr. George Smalridge. His corpse was interred in the church of Lambeth in Surrey, May 26 1692, and a black marble stone laid over his grave, with a Latin inscription, in which, though there is much to his honour, there is nothing which exceeds the truth. He may be considered as one of the first and most useful collectors of documents respecting English antiquities, but the frequent application of the epithet genius to him, in the Biographia Britannica, is surely gratuitous. His attachment to- the absurdities of astrology and alchemy, and his association with Lilly, Booker, and other quacks and impostors of his age, must ever prevent his being ranked among the learned wise, although he never appears to have been a confederate in the tricks of Lilly and his friends, and certainly accumulated a considerable portion of learning and information on various useful topics. His benefaction to the university of Oxford will ever secure respect for his memory. It was towards the latter end of October 1677, that he made an offer to that university, of bestowing on it all that valuable collection of the Tradescants, which was so well known to the learned world, and which had been exceedingly improved since it came into his possession, together with all the coins, medals, and manuscripts of his own collecting, provided they would erect a building fit to receive them to which proposition the university willingly assented. Accordingly, on Thursday the 15th of May 1679, the first stone of that stately fabric, afterwards called Ashmole’s Museum, was laid on the west side of the theatre, and being finished by the beginning of March 1682, the collection was deposited and the articles arranged by Robert Plott, LL.D. who before had been intrusted with their custody. This museum was first publicly viewed, on the 2 1st of May following, by his royal highness James duke of York, his royal consort Josepha Maria, princess Anne, and their attendants, and on the 24th of the same month, by the doctors and masters of the university. In a convocation held on the 4th of June following (1683) a Latin letter of thanks, penned by him who was then deputy orator, being publicly read, was sent to Mr. Ashmole at South Lambeth, In July 1690, he visited the university with his wife, and was received with all imaginable honour, and entertained at a noble dinner in his museum; on which occasion Mr. Edward Hannes, A. M. the chemical professor, afterwards an eminent physician, made an elegant oration to him. His benefaction to the university was very considerably enlarged at his death, by the addition of his library, which consisted of one thousand seven hundred and fifty-eight books, of which six hundred and twenty were manuscripts, and of them three hundred and eleven folios, relating chiefly to English History, Heraldry, Astronomy, and Chemiftry, with a great variety of pamphlets, part of which had been sorted by himself, and the rest are methodized since, and a double catalogue made one classical, according to their various subjects, and another alphabetical. He bequeathed also to the same place, two gold chains and a medal, the one a filigreen chain of ninety links, weighing twenty-two ounces, with a medal of the elector of Brandenburg, upon which is the effigies of that elector, and on the reverse, a iHew of Straelsund, struck upon the surrender of that important city; a collar of S. S. with a medal of the king of Denmark; and a gold medal of the elector Palatine; and a George of the duke of Norfolk, worn by his grandfather when he was ambassador in Germany. All these he had received as acknowledgments of the honour which he had done the garter, by his labours on that subject. This museum has been since enriched by the Mss. of Anthony Wood, Aubrey, and others. It has been remarked as something extraordinary, that Mr. Ashmole was never knighted for his services as a herald. It is perhaps as extraordinary that the university of Oxford bestowed on him the degree of doctor of physic, who never regularly studied or practised in that faculty, unless we conceive it as a compliment to his chemical studies.

, or Avanzi Giammarie, a celebrated Italian lawyer, was born Aug. 23, 1564. He was educated with great care, and discovered so much taste for polite literature, that Riccoboni, his master, said, he was the only youth he had ever known who seemed to be born a poet and orator. His father wished him to study medicine, but his own inclination led him to study law, in which he soon became distinguished. At Ferrara he acquired an intimacy with Tasso, Guarini, Cremonini, and other eminent characters of that time. He afterwards retired to Rovigo, and practised as a lawyer, but was singularly unfortunate in his personal affairs, not only losing a considerable part of his property by being security for some persons who violated their engagements, but having his life attempted by assassins who attacked him one day and left him for dead with eighteen wounds. He recovered, however, but his brother being soon after assassinated, and having lost his wife, he retired, in 1606, to Padua, where he died, March 2, 1622, leaving several children, of whom Charles, his second son, became a learned physician and botanist. Avanzi wrote a poem “Il Satiro Favola Pastorale,” Venice, 1587, and dedicated it to the emperor Ferdinand, who rewarded him amply, and wished to bring him to his court, by the offer of the place of counsellor of state. He left in manuscript, a church history, “Historia Ecclesiastica a Lutheri apostasia;” and “Concilia de rebus civilibus et criminalibus.”

, an eminent physician and astronomer, born in 1582, at Ashby de la Zouch, Leicestershire, was educated at the public school of that town; and from thence went to Emanuel college in Cambridge, under the tuition of Dr. Joseph Hall, afterwards bishop of Norwich. When he had taken his degrees of bachelor and master of arts, he went, back to Leicestershire, where he taught a grammar-school for some years, and at the same time practised physic. He employed his leisure hours in the mathematics, especially astronomy, which had been his favourite study from his earliest years. By the advice of his friends, who thought his abilities too great for the obscurity of a country life, he removed to London, where he was admitted a fellow of the college of physicians. His description of the comet, which appeared in 1618, greatly raised his character. It was by this means he got acquainted with sir Henry Savile, who, in 1619, appointed him his first professor of astronomy at Oxford. Upon this he removed to that university, and was entered a master commoner of Merton college; the master and fellows whereof appointed him junior reader of Linacer’s lecture in 1631, and superior reader in 1635. As he resolved to publish correct editions of the ancient astronomers, agreeably to the statutes of the founder of his professorship; in order to make himself acquainted with the discoveries of the Arabian astronomers, he began the study of the Arabic language when he was above 40 years of age. Some time before his death, he removed to a house opposite Merton college, where he died in 1643. His body was conveyed to the public schools, where an oration was pronounced in his praise by the university orator; and was carried from thence to Merton college church, where it was deposited near the altar. His published works are, 1. “An astronomical description of the late Comet, from the 18th of November 1618, to the 16th of December following,” London, 1619, 4to. This piece was only a specimen of a large work, which the author intended to publish in Latin, under the title of “Cometographia.” 2. “Procli sphæra. Ptolomæi de hypothesibus Planetarum liber singularis.” To which he added Ptolemy’s “Canon regnorum.” He collated these pieces with ancient manuscripts, and has given a Latin version of them, illustrated with figures, 1620, 4to. 3. “Canicularia; a treatise concerning the dog-star and the canicular days.” Published at Oxford in 1648, by Mr. Greaves, together with a demonstration of the heliacal rising of Sirius, or the dog-star, for the parallel of Lower Egypt. Dr. Bainbridge undertook this work at the request of archbishop Usher, but left it imperfect; being prevented by the breaking out of the civil war, or by death.

, D.D. was educated at Eton school, and was admitted into King’s college, Cambridge, in 1737, where he proceeded B. A. 1742, M. A. 1746, and D.D. 1771. He was tutor of his college, and presided as moderator in the Soph’s school, in 1747, 1751, and 1756 and was of course one of the taxors of the university in each of the years succeeding. He was public orator in 1761-2, which office he resigned in 1768, and a candidate for the Greek professorship on the death of Fraignean, but was unsuccessful. He was presented by his college to the living of Fordinbridge, in Hampshire, in that year, which he ceded in April 1773, on being instituted to the rectory of Kimpton, in Hertfordshire, which he held during life, along with the living of Allhallows, Lombard-street, London. In June 1770, he was installed 9. prebendary of Canterbury, in consequence of his having been chaplain to the house of commons, on the appointment of sir John Cust, the speaker. But he did not continue in this office above one session sir Fletcher Norton the succeeding speaker, making choice of another clergyman for that office. It was supposed there was some design to prevent his receiving the usual recompense for his service, but his friends contended, that he was not to be considered as the chaplain of the speaker, but of the house, and Mr. Thomas Townsend, afterwards lord Sydney, moved, on May 9th, to address the king to confer upon Mr. Barford, as chaplain, some dignity in the church. He was ordered to preach before the house of commons on Jan. 30 of that year, which sermon he printed. He published also “In Pindari primum Pythium dissertatio habita Cantabrigiae in Scholis publicis,” 1751, 4to; a “Latin Oration” at the funeral of Dr. George, provost of King’s college, 1756; and a “Concio ad Clerum,” 1784, on the first meeting of the convocation at St. Paul’s cathedral. The learned Mr. Bryant, in the preface to the third volume of his System of Mythology, bears honourable testimony to the merits of Dr. Barford, as a scholar and a friend. He died as he had lived, universally respected by all learned and good men, in Nov. 1792, at his rectory of Kim p ton.

, more commonly known by the name of Basingstochius, or de Basingstoke, was born at Basingstoke, a town in the north part of Hampshire, and thence took his surname. He was a person highly eminent for virtue and learning; a perfect master of the Latin and Greek languages; and also an eloquent orator, an able mathematician and philosopher, and a sound divine. The foundation of his great learning he laid in the university of Oxford, and, for his farther improvement, went to Paris, where he resided some years. He afterwards travelled to Athens, where he made many curious observations, and perfected himself in his studies, particularly in the knowledge of the Greek tongue. At his return to England, he brought over with him several curious Greek manuscripts, and introduced the use of the Greek numeral figures in to this kingdom. He became also a very great promoter and encourager of the study of that language, which was much neglected in these western parts of the world: and to facilitate it, he translated from Greek into Latin a grammar, which he entitled “The Donatus of the Greeks.” Our author’s merit and learning recommended him to the esteem of all lovers of literature: particularly to the favour of Robert Grosteste, bishop of Lincoln, by whom he was preferred to the archdeaconry of Leicester, as he had been some time before to that of London. He died in 1252. The rest of his works are, 1. A Latin translation of a Harmony of the Gospels. 2. A volume of sermons. 3. “Particulue sententiarum per distinctiones,” or a Commentary upon part of Lombard’s Sentences, &c. It was he also that informed Robert, bishop of Lincoln, that he had seen at Athens a book called “The Testament of the XII Patriarchs.” Upon which the bishop sent for it, and translated it into Latin, and it was printed among the “Orthodoxographa,” Basilero, 1555, fol. and afterwards translated into English, and often reprinted, 12mo.

, a poet of some note in the fourteenth century, and author of several works, was born in Yorkshire, not far from Nottingham. In his youth he became a Carmelite monk, and afterwards prior of the convent of that order at Scarborough. Bale says that he was likewise poet laureat and public orator at Oxford, which Wood thinks doubtful. Edward I. (not Edward II. as Mr. Warton says) carried him with him in his expedition to Scotland in 1304, to be an eye-witness and celebrate his conquest of Scotland in verse. Holinshed mentions this circumstance as a singular proof of Edward’s presumption and confidence in his undertaking against Scotland, but it appears that a poet was a stated officer in the royal retinue when the king went to war. On this occasion Baston was peculiarly unfortunate, being taken prisoner, and compelled by the Scots to write a panegyric on Robert Bruce, as the price of his ransom. This was the more provoking, as he had just before written on the siege of Stirling castle in honour of his master, which performance is extant in Fordun’s Scoti-chronicon. His works, according to Bale and Pits, were written under these titles: 1. “De Strivilniensi obsidione:” of the Siege of Stirling, a poem in one book. 2. “De altero Scotorum Beilo,” in one book. 3. “De Scotiae Guerris variis,” in one book. 4. “De variis mundi Statibus,” in one book. 5. “De Sacerdotum luxuriis,” in one book. 6. “Contra Artistas,” in one book. 7. “De Divite et Lazaro.” 8. “Epistolae ad diversos,” in one book. 9. “Sermones Synodales,” in one book. 10. A Book of Poems; and, 11. A volume of tragedies and comedies in English, the existence of which is doubtful. His other poems are in monkish Latin hexameters. He died about 1310, and was buried at Nottingham.

As soon as Beausobre became settled at Berlin, he resumed his favourite studies, and particularly his “History of the Reformation,” which he carried down to the Augsburgh confession, and left it in manuscript. In this state it remained until 1784, when it was published at Berlin in 4 vols. 8v6. Its principal object is the origin and progress, of Lutheranism, in treating of which the author has availed himself of Seckendorfl’s history, but has added many vainable materials. It contains also very curious and ample details relative to the progress of the reformation in France and Swisserland; but it nevertheless is not free from objections, both on the score of impartiality and accuracy. In the mean time, the Prussian court having desired M. Beausobre and his friend M. Lenfant to prepare a translation of the New Testament, they shared the labour between them, M. Lenfant taking the Evangelists, Acts, Catholic epistles, and the Apocalypse, and M. Beausobre the epistles of St. Paul. The whole was published in 2 vols. 4to, Amst. 1718, with prefaces, notes, c. A second edition appeared in 1741, with considerable additions and corrections. Their “Introduction” was published separately at Cambridge (translated into English) in 1779; and Dr. Watson, bishop of Llandaff, who inserted it in the third volume of his “Theological Tracts,” pronounces it a work of extraordinary merit, the authors Laving left scarcely any togic untouched, on which the voting student in divinity may he supposed to wunt information. Their only opponent, at the time of publication, was a Mr. Dartis, formerly a minister at Berlin, from which he had retired, and who published a pamphlet, to which Beausobre and Lenfant made separate replies. Beausobre was one of the principal members of a society of literary men of Berlin, who called them the “Anonymi,” and this connection led 'him to be a contributor to the “Bibliothcque Gcrmanique,” of which he was editor from vol. IV. to the time of his death, excepting vol. XL. One of the pieces he wrote for this journal was translated into English, and published at London, 1735, 8vo, under the title of “St. Jatzko, or a commentary on a passage in the plea for the Jesuits of Thorn”. But his most celebrated work was his “Histoire critique de Mauicheisme,” Amst. 1734, 1739, 2 vols. 4to. Of the merit of this work it may, perhaps, be sufficient to give the opinion of a man of no religion, Gibbon, who says that “it is a treasure of ancient philosophy and theology. The learned historian spins, with incomparable art, the systematic thread of opinion, and transforms himself by turns into the person of a saint, a sage, or an heretic. Yet his refinement is sometimes excessive: he betrays an amiable partiality in favour of the weaker side, and while he guards against calumny, he does not allow sufficient scope for superstition and fanaticism,” things, or rather words, which Gibbon js accustomed to use without much meaning. The journalists of Trevoux having attacked this work, gave Mr. IjJeausobre an opportunity of showing his superiority in ecclesiastical history, by an answer published in the BibL Germanique, which perhaps is too long. He wrote also a curious preface to the “Memoirs of Frederick-Henry, prince of Orange,” Amst. 1733. These are all the works which appeared in the life-time of our author, but he left a great many manuscripts, dissertations on points of ecclesiastical history, and sermons, none of which, we believe, have been published, except the “History of the Reformation,” already noticed. M. Beausobre reached the period of old age, without experiencing much of its influence. He preached at the age of eighty with vigour and spirit. His last illness appears to have come on in October 1737, and although it had many favourable intermissions, he died June 5, 1738, in the full possession of his faculties and recollection, and universally regretted by his Hock, as well as by the literary world. The most remarkable encomium bestowed on him, is that of the prince, afterwards Frederick king of Prussia, in a letter to Voltaire, published in the works of the latter. “We are -about to lose one of the greatest men of Germany. This is the famous M. de Beausobre, a man of honour and probity, of great genius, a taste exquisite and delicate, a great orator, learned in the history of the church and in general literature, an implacable enemy of the Jesuits, the best writer in Berlin, a man full of fire and vivacity, which eighty years of life have not chilled; has a little of the weakness of superstition, a fault common enowgh with people of his stamp, and is conscious enough of his abilities to be affected by applause. This loss is irreparable. We have no one who can replace M. de Beausobre; men of merit are rare, and when nature sows them they do not always come to maturity.” The applause of such a man as Beausobre, from Frederick of Prussia to Voltaire, is a curiosity.

Mr. Iloscoe, whose researches into the literature of this age, entitle his opinions to great respect, observes that the high commendation bestowed on the writings of Bembo by almost all his contemporaries, have been confirmed by the best critics of succeeding times; nor can it be denied that by selecting as his models Boccaccio and Petrarch, and by combining their excellences with his own correct and elegant taste, he contributed in an eminent degree to banish that rusticity of style, which charactersed the writings of most of the Italian authors at the commencement of the sixteenth century. His authority and example produced an astonishing effect, and among his disciples and imitators may be found many of the first scholars and most distinguished writers of the age. It must, however, be observed, that the merit of his works consists rather in purity and correctness of diction, than in vigour of sentiment or variety of poetical ornament; and that they exhibit but little diversity either of character or subject, having for the most part been devoted to the celebration of an amorous passion. In the perusal of his poetical works we perceive nothing of that genuine feeling, which proceeding from the heart of the author makes a direct and irresistible appeal to that of the reader; and but little even of that secondary characteristic of genius which luxuriates in the regions of fancy, and by its vivid and rapid imagery delights the imagination. In this respect his example wat hurtful, as his numerous imitators soon inundated Italy with writings which seldom exhibit any distinction either of character or merit. It is also thought that in his Latin writings he has too closely followed the ancients; and in his verse as well as his prose, has too often endeavoured to imitate Cicero. Tenhove remarks how ridiculously he adopted the phrases of Cicero on ecclesiastical subjects, and Erasmus has ridiculed this practice with great wit in his Ciceronianus. The same critic adds that Bembo’s Latin style is forced and laboured; words and things are perpetually at war: and if he always triumphs, it is sometimes by the dint of excessive pains, and sometimes at the expence of judgment. The Roman orator is to Bembo, what a graceful dancer is to a posture-master. The whole of Bembo’s works, Latin and Italian, were published at Venice in 1729, 4 vols. fol.

, an Italian orator and poet, was born at Aquapendente in 1542, and received his early education from his father. He was then sent to Rome, anu in 1563 began to attend the Jesuits’ college for the study of philosophy and jurisprudence, which he pursued for six years. His master was the celebrated Muretus, but for some time, as his biographer informs us, the love of the world predominated, notwithstanding the voice of conscience, to which, however, at length he listened, and, in 1570, entered into the society of the Jesuits, going through the regular probations. He now changed his name, which was Plautus, to that of Francis, a practice usual among the religious of that order. Yet still his new engagements did not interrupt his favourite studies, which led him to high reputation as an orator and poet. For many years likewise he taught rhetoric at Sienna, Perugia, and Rome, and was regarded by his learned contemporaries, as another Muretus. Flattered, however, as he might have been by these lavish praises, and encouraged to hope for preferment adequate to such acknowledgments of his merit, he is said to have been a man of great modesty, and entirely free from ambition. Muretus had admitted him to the closest intimacy, and Benci no further presumed on his friendship than to request he would introduce more of the Christian in his life and writings than had yet been visible. Muretus acknowledges this very handsomely in the dedication to Benci, of his Latin translation of Aristotle’s rhetoric. Benci died in the Jesuits’ college at Rome, May 6, 1594. An edition of his works was published at Lyons in 1603, but most of them had been separately and very often printed. They consist of orations, Latin dramas and poems, and some religious treatises, enumerated by Moreri.

, an Italian Jesuit, physician, and mathematician of considerable eminence, was born at Leghorn, Feb. 8, 1716. He began his noviciate among the Jesuits at the age of sixteen, but did not take the four vows, according to the statutes of that order, until eighteen years afterwards. He had already published a funeral oration on Louis Ancajani, bishop of Spoleto, 1743, and a species of oratorio, to be set to music, entitled “Cristo presentato al tempio,” but it was neither as an orator or poet that he was destined to shine. He became professor of philosophy at Fermo, and when father Boscovich was obliged to leave Rome to complete the chorographical chart of the papal state, which he published some years afterwards, Benvenuti succeeded him in the mathematical chair of the Roman college, and also resumed his lectures on philosophy in the same college. His first scientific work was an Italian translation of Clairaut’s Geometry, Rome, 1751, 8vo and he afterwards published two works, which gained him much reputation: 1. “Synopsis Physics generalis,” a thesis maintained by one of his disciples, the marquis de Castagnaga, on Benvenuti’s principles, which were those of sir Isaac Newton, Rome, 1754, 4to. 2. “De Lumine dissertatio physica,” another thesis maintained by the marquis, ibid. 1754, 4to. By both these he contributed to establish the Newtonian system in room of those fallacious principles which had so long obtained in that college; but it must not be concealed that a considerable part of this second work on light, belongs to father Boscovich, as Benvenuti was taken ill before he had completed it, and after it was sent to press. After the expulsion of the Jesuits, there appeared at Rome an attack upon them, entitled “Riflessioni sur Gesuitismo,” 1772, to which Benvenuti replied in a pamphlet, entitled “Irrefiessioni sur Gesuitismo” but this answer gave so much offence, that he was obliged to leave Rome and retire into Poland, where he was kindly received by the king, and became a favourite at his court. He died at Warsaw, in September, 1789.

, a lawyer, philosopher, orator, and poet, of Ferrara, was born in 1610. After having pursued his studies with great success, and taken his law degrees, in the university of his native city, he was chosen professor of the belles lettres, then first secretary, and in that quality was sent to compliment pope Innocent X. on his election to the papal chair. He lived in considerable favour with that pope, as well as with Alexander VII. and Clement IX. his successors, and the dukes of Mantua, Charles I. and II. who conferred upon him the title of Count. His poetical talents were principally devoted to the drama and one of his plays “Gli Sforzi del Desiderio,” represented at Ferrara in 1652, was so successful, that the archduke Ferdinand Charles, struck with its popularity, no sooner returned home than he sent for the author and some architects from Ferrara, to build two theatres for similar representations. Berni was married seven times, and had, as might be expected, a numerous family, of whom nine sons and daughters survived him. He died Oct. 13, 1673. Eleven of his dramas, formerly published separately, were printed in one volume, at Ferrara, 1666, 12mo. He published also a miscellany of discourses, problems, &c. entitled “Accademia,” Ferrara, 2 vols. 4to, without date, and reprinted in 1658. Many of his lyric poems are in the collections.

, called one of the wise men of Greece, was born at Priene, a small town of Caria, abqut 570 B. C. He was in great repute in Greece, under the reigns of Halyattes and Croesus, kings of Lydia. Though born to great riches, he lived without splendour, expending his fortune in relieving the needy, and although esteemed the most eloquent orator of his time, he desired to reap no other advantage from this talent, than that of glory to his country. In his pleadings he shewed such discrimination, as never to undertake any cause which he did not think just. It was usual to say of a good cause that it was one which Bias would have undertaken, yet we are not told by what means he knew that a cause was good before it was tried. On one occasion, certain pirates brought several young women to sell as slaves at Priene. Bias purchased them, and maintained them, until he had an opportunity to return them to their friends. This generous action could not fail to increase his popularity, and made him be styled “the prince of the wise men.”

Bias is said to have composed above two thousand verses, containing prudential maxims, many of which may be found in Stanley, and other writers on the lives of the philosophers. The following have been selected by Brucker “It is a proof of a weak and disordered mind to desire impossibilities. The greatest infelicity is, not to be able to endure misfortunes patiently. Great minds alone can support a sudden reverse of fortune. The most pleasant state is, to be always gaining. Be not unmindful of the miseries of others. II you are handsome, do handsome things if deformed, supply the defects of nature by your virtues. Be slow in undertaking, but resolute in executing. Praise hot a worthless man for the sake of his wealth. Whatever good you do, ascribe it to the gods. Lay in wisdom as the store for your journey from youth to old age, for it is the most certain possession. Many men are dishonest; therefore love your friend with caution, for he may hereafter become your enemy.” This last, however, would have better become a Rochefoucault, or a Chesterfield. Bias happened to be at Priene, when it was taken and sacked, and when asked, why he did not, like the rest, think of saving something, answered, “So I do, for I carry my all with me.” The action by which his days were terminated was no less illustrious than those of h s former life. He caused himself to be carried into the senate, where he zealously defended the interest of one of his friends, but being now very old, it fatigued him much. He leaned his head on the breast of one of his daughter’s sons, who had accompanied him. When the orator, who pleaded for his opponent, had finished his discourse, the judges pronounced in favour of Bias, who immediately expired in the arms of his grandson.

, a Greek philosopher, who flourished 300 B.C. was born at Borysthenes, a Greek town on the borders of the river of that name, now the Dneiper. Of his family, he is said to have given the following account to king Antigonus, who had heard something of his mean birth, and thinking to embarrass him, demanded his name, his country, his origin, &c. Bion, without being in the least disconcerted, answered, “My father was a freed-man, whose employment was to sell salt-fish. He had been a Scythian, born on the banks of the Borysthenes. He got acquainted with my mother in a place of bad fame, and there the couple celebrated their hopeful marriage. My father afterwards committed some crime, with the precise nature of which I am unacquainted; and for this, he, his wife, and his children, were exposed to sale. I was then a sprightly boy. An orator purchased me and on his death, bequeathed to me all his effects. I instantly tore his will, threw it into the fire, and went to Athens, where I applied to the study of philosophy.” In this city he first attached himself to Crates, and became a cynic, and then embraced the opinions of Theodoras, the atheist, and Theophrastus, and at last became a philosopher in his own way, without belonging to any sect. The name of philosopher, however, seems ill applied to him. He uttered, indeed, some wise and moral sayings, but his general conduct was that of extreme profligacy. He died at Chalcis, and during his last illness, is said to have repented of his libertinism, for which he endeavoured to atone by superstitious observances. He wrote copiously on the subject of morals, and Stobeus has preserved a few fragments.

Having related the more personal and private circumstances of Dr. Birch’s history, we proceed to his various publications. The first great work he engaged in, was “The General Dictionary, historical and critical” wherein a new translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle was included and which was interspersed with several thousand lives never before published. It was on the 29th of April, 1734, that Dr. Birch, in conjunction with the rev. Mr. John Peter Bernard, and Mr. John Lockman, agreed with the booksellers to carry on this important undertaking; and Mr. George Sale was employed to draw up the articles relating to oriental history. The whole design was completed in ten volumes, folio; the first of which appeared in 1734, and the last in 1741. It is universally allowed, that this work contains a very extensive and useful body of biographical knowledge. We are not told what were the particular articles written by Dr. Birch but there is no doubt of his having executed a great part of the dictionary neither is it, we suppose, any disparagement to his coadjutors, to say, that he was superior to them in abilities and reputation, with the exception of Mr. George Sale, who was, without controversy, eminently qualified for the department he had undertaken. The next great design in which Dr. Birch engaged, was the publication of “Thurloe’s State Papers.” This collection, which comprised seven volumes in folio, came out in 1742. It is dedicated to the late lord chancellor Hardwicke, and there is prefixed to it a life of Thurloe but whether it was written or not by our author, does not appear. The same life had been separately published not long before. The letters and papers in this collection throw the greatest light on the pe'riod to which they relate, and are accompanied with proper references, and a complete index to each volume, yet was a work by which the proprietors were great losers. In 1744, Dr. Birch published, in octavo, a “Life of the honourable Robert Boyle, esq” which hath since been prefixed to the quarto edition of the works of that philosopher. In the same year, our author began his assistance to Houbraken and Vertue, in their design of publishing, in folio, the “Heads of illustrious persons of Great Britain,” engraved by those two artists, but chiefly by Mr. Houbraken. To each head was annexed, by Dr, Birch, the life and character of the person represented. The first volume of this work, which came out in numbers, was completed in 1747, and the second in 1752. Our author’s concern in this undertaking did not hinder his prosecuting, at the same time, other historical disquisitions: for, in 1747, appeared, in octavo,“His inquiry into the share which king Charles the First had in the transactions of the earl of Glamorgan.” A second edition ef the Inquiry was published in 1756, and it was a work that excited no small degree of attention. In 1751, Dr. Birch was editor of the “Miscellaneous works of sir Walter Raleigh” to which was prefixed the life of that unfortunate and injured man. Previously to this, Dr. Birch published “An historical view of the negociations between the courts of England, France, and Brussels, from 1592 to 1617; extracted chiefly from the ms State Papers of sir Thomas Edmondes, knight, embassador in France, and at Brussels, and treasurer of the household to the kings James I. and Charles I. and of Anthony Bacon, esq. brother to the lord chancellor Bacon. To which is added, a relation of the state of France, with the character of Henry IV. and the principal persons of that court, drawn up by sir George Carew, upon his return from his embassy there in 1609, and addressed to king James I. never before printed.” This work, which consists of one volume, in octavo, appeared in 1749; and, in an introductory discourse to the honourable Philip Yorke, esq. (the late earl of Hardwicke), Dr. Birch makes some reflections on the utility of deducing history from its only true and unerring sources, the original letters and papers of those eminent men, who were the principal actors in the administration of affairs; after which he gives some account of the lives of sir Thomas Edmondes, sir George Carew, and Mr. Anthorry Bacon. The “Historical View” is undoubtedly a valuable performance, and hath brought to light a variety of particulars relative to the subjects and the period treated of, which before were either not at all, or not so fully known. In 17.51, was published by our author, an edition, in two volumes, 8vo, of the “Theological, moral, dramatic, and poetical works of Mrs. Catherine Cockburn” with an account of her life. In the next year came out his “Life of the most reverend Dr. John Tillotson, lord archbishop of Canterbury. Compiled chiefly from his original papers and letters.” A second edition, corrected and enlarged, appeared in 1753. This work, which was dedicated to archbishop Herring, is one of the most pleasing and popular of Dr. Birch’s performances; and he has done great justice to Dr. Tillotsou’s memory, character, and virtues. Our biographer hath likewise intermixed with his narrative of the good prelate’s transactions, short accounts of the persons occasionally mentioned; a method which he has pursued in some of his other publications. In 1753, he revised. the quarto edition, in two volumes, of Milton’s prose works, and added a new life of that great poet and writer. Dr. Birch gave to the world', in the following year, his “Memoirs of the reign of queen Elizabeth, from the year 1581, till her death. In which the secret intrigues of her court, and the conduct of her favourite, Robert earl of Essex, both at home and abroad, are particularly illustrated. From the original papers of his intimate friend, Anthony Bacon, esq. and other manuscripts never before published.” These memoirs, which are inscribed to the earl of Hardwicke, give a minute account of the letters and materials from which they are taken and the whole work undoubtedly forms a very valuable collection in which our author has shewn himself (as in his other writings) to be a faithfnl and accurate compiler and in which, besides a full display of the temper and actions of the earl of Essex, much light is thrown on the characters of the Cecils, Bacons, and many eminent persons of that period. The book is now becoming scarce, and, as it may not speedily be republished, is rising in its value. This is the case, likewise, with regard to the edition of sir Walter Raleigh’s miscellaneous works. Dr. Birch’s next publication was “The history of the Royal Society of London, for improving of natural knowledge, from its first rise. In which the most considerable of those papers, communicated to the society, which have hitherto not been published, are inserted in their proper order, as a supplement to the Philosophical Transactions.” The twq first volumes of this performance, which was dedicated to his late majesty, appeared in 1756, and the two other volumes in 1757. The history is carried on to the end of the year 1687 and if the work had been continued, and had been conducted with the same extent and minuteness, it would have been a very voluminous undertaking. But, though it may, perhaps, be justly blamed in this respect, it certainly contains many curious and entertaining anecdotes concerning the manner of the society’s proceedings at their first establishment. It is enriched, likewise, with a number of personal circumstances relative to the members, and with biographical accounts of such of the more considerable of them as died in the course of each year. In 1760, came out, in one volume, 8vo, our author’s “Life of Henry prince of Wales, eldest son of king James I. Compiled chiefly from his own papers, and other manuscripts, never before published.” It is dedicated to his present majesty, then prince of Wales. Some have objected to this work, that it abounds too much with trifling details, and that Dr. Birch has not given sufficient scope to such reflections and disquisitions as arose from his subject. It must, nevertheless, be acknowledged, that it affords a more exact and copious account than had hitherto appeared of a prince whose memory has always been remarkably popular; and that various facts, respecting several other eminent characters, are occasionally introduced. Another of his publications was, “Letters, speeches, charges, advices, &c. of Francis Bacon, lord viscount St. AJban, lord chancellor of England.” This collection, which is comprised in one volume, 8vo, and is dedicated to the honourable Charles Yorke, esq. appeared in 1763. It is taken from some papers which had been originally in the possession of Dr. Rawley, lord Bacon’s chaplain, whose executor, Mr. John Rawley, having put them into the hands of Dr. Tenison, they were, at length, deposited in the manuscript library at Lambeth. Dr. Birch, speaking of these papers of lord Bacon, says, that it can scarcely be imagined, but that the bringing to light, from obscurity and oblivion, the remains of so eminent a person, will be thought an acquisition not inferior to the discovery (if the ruins of Herculaneum should afford such a treasure) of a new set of the epistles of Cicero, whom our immortal countryman most remarkably resembled as an orator, a philosopher, a writer, a lawyer, and a statesman. Though this, perhaps, is speaking too highly of a collection, which contains many things in it seemingly not very material, it must, at the same time, be allowed, that nothing can be totally uninteresting which relates to so illustrious a man, or tends, in any degree, to give a farther insight into his character. To this catalogue we have still to add “Professor Greaves’s miscellaneous works,” 1737, in two vols. 8vo. Dr. Cud worth’s “Intellectual System,” (improved from the Latin edition of Mosheim) his discourse on the true notion of the Lord’s Supper, and two sermons, with an account of his life and writings, 1743, in two vols. 4to. An edition of Spenser’s “Fairy Queen,” 1751, in three Vols. 4to, with prints from designs by Kent. “Letters between col. Robert Hammond, governor of the Isle of Wight, and the committee of lords and commons at Derbyhouse, general Fairfax, lieut.-general Cromwell, commissary general Ireton, &c. relating to king Charles I. while he was confined in Carisbrooke-castle in that island. Now first published. To which is prefixed a letter from John Ashburnham, esq. to a friend, concerning his deportment towards the king, in his attendance on his majesty at Hampton-court, and in the Isle of Wight,” 1764, 8vo. Dr. Birch’s last essay, “The life of Dr. Ward,” which was finished but a week before his death, was published by Dr. Maty, in 1766.

, professor of canon law in the university of Bononia in Italy, in the sixteenth century, was descended from the earls of Fife in Scotland, and born in that county in the reign of James V. He was educated at St. Andrew’s, from whence he removed to Paris, and, having spent some time in that university, proceeded to Bononia, where he commenced doctor of laws, and was afterwards appointed professor of canon law. He continued in that office several years with great reputation, and died in 156S. He is said to have been not only a learned civilian, but an excellent poet, orator, and philosopher. He wrote “P. Bissarti opera omnia viz. poemata, orationes, lectiones feriales, &c.” Venice, 1565, 4to.

, an eminent Italian scholar, was born at Bologna in 1488, of a noble family. In his studies he made uncommon proficiency, and had distinguished himself at the early age of twenty by his very learned work on Plautus. According to the custom of the age, he attached himself to various princes, but at first to the celebrated Albert Pio, count of Carpi. Having become imperial orator at the court of Rome, he obtained by his talents and knowledge of business, the titles of chevalier and count Palatine, and was intrusted with some important functions, such as that of bestowing the degree of doctor, of creating notaries, and even legitimizing natural children. At Bologna he was professor of Greek and Latin, rhetoric and poetry, and was chosen one of the Auziani in 1522. Having acquired a handsome fortune, he built a palace, and in 1546 founded an academy in it, named from himself Academia Bocchiana, or Bocchiale. It was also called Ermatena, agreeable to its device, on which was engraven the two figures of Mercury and Minerva. He also established a printing-office in his house, and he and his academicians employed themselves in correcting the many beautiful editions which they printed. Bocchi was a good Hebrew scholar, and well versed in antiquities and history, particularly that of his own country. The senate of Bologna employed him on writing the history of that city, and bestowed on him the title of Historiographer. Cardinal Sadolet, the two Flaminio’s, John Phil. Achillini, and Lcl. Greg. Giraldi, were among his particular friends, who have all spoken very favourably of him in their works. This last was much attached to him, and it is supposed that he meant to express this attachment by giving him the name of Phileros (loving friend), or Philerote, which is on the title of some of his works. Bocchi died at Bologna, Nov. 6, 1562. He wrote, 1. “Apologia in Plautum, cui accedit vita Ciceronis authore Plutarcho,” Bologn.

Upon the accession of queen Elizabeth in 1558, he returned into England with his father 'and family, who settled at London and soon after, he was sent to Magdalen college, in Oxford, under the tuition of Dr. Humphrey, afterwards president of that society. In 1563he took the degree of B. A. and the same year was chosen probationer of Merton college, and the year following admitted fellow. In 1565, by persuasion of some of the fellows, he undertook the public reading of a Greek lecture in the hall of that college, which he continued for some time without expecting or requiring any stipend but afterwards the society of their own accord allowed him a salary of four marks per annum and from that time continued the lecture to the college. In 1566 he took the degree of M. A. and the same year read natural philosophy in the public schools. In 1569 he was elected one of the proctors of the university and after that, for a considerable time, supplied the place of university orator. Hitherto Mr. Bodley applied himself to the study of various faculties, without the inclination to profess any one more than the rest; but, in 1576, being desirous to improve himself in the modern languages, and to qualify himself for public business, he began his travels, and spent nearly four years in visiting France, Germany, and Italy. Afterwards, returning to his college, he applied himself to the study of history and politics. In 1583 he was made gentleman usher to queen Elizabeth; and in 1585, married Anne, daughter of Mr. Carew, of Bristol, and widow of Mr. Ball, a lady of considerable fortune. Soon after, he was employed by queen Elizabeth in several embassies to Frederick king of Denmark, Julius duke of Brunswick, William landgrave of Hesse, and other German princes, to erfgage them to join their forces with those of the English, for the assistance of the king of Navarre, afterwards Henry IV. of France and having discharged that commission, he was sent to king Henry III. at the time when that prince was forced by the duke of Guise to quit Paris. This commission, he tells us, he performed with extraordinary secrecy, not being accompanied by any one servant, (for so he was commanded), nor with any other letters than such as were written with the queen’s own hand to the king, and some select persons about him. “The effect,” he adds, “of that message it is fit I should conceal; but it tended greatly to the advantage of all the Protestants in France, and to the duke’s apparent overthrow, which also followed soon upon it.” Camden says nothing more of this embassy than that queen Elizabeth “not only assisted the king of Navarre, when he was entangled in a dangerous and difficult war, with money and other military provisions, but sent over sir Thomas Bodley to support or encourage the French king when his affairs seemed to be in a very desperate condition.”

His progress in physic hitherto was without any assistance from lectures, except those mentioned in anatomy, and a few by professor Drelincourt on the theory; nor had he yet any thoughts of declining the priesthood: amidst mathematical, philosophical, anatomical, chemical and medical researches, he still earnestly pursued divinity. He went to the university of Harderwick in Guelderland, and in July 1693 was created there M. D. Upon his return to Leyden, he still persisted in his design of engaging in the ministry, but found an invincible obstruction to his intention. In a passage-boat where he happened to be, some discourse was accidentally started about the doctrine of Spinosa, as subversive of all religion and one of the passengers, who exerted himself most, opposing to this philosopher’s pretended mathematical demonstrations only the loud invective of a blind zeal, Boerhaave asked him calmly, “Whether he had ever read the works of the author he decried” The orator was at once struck dumb, and fired with silent resentment. Another passenger whispered the person next him, to learn Boerhaave’s name, and took it down in his pocket-book; and as soon as he arrived at Leyden, gave it out every where, that Boerhaave was become a Spinosist. Boerhaave, finding that such prejudices gained ground, thought it imprudent to risque the refusal of a licence for the pulpit, when he had so fair a prospect of rising by physic. He now therefore applied wholly to physic, and joined practice with reading. In 1701, he took the office of lecturer upon the institutes of physic and delivered an oration the 18th of May, the subject of which was a recommendation of the study of Hippocrates: apprehending that, either through indolence or arrogance, this founder of physic had been shamefully neglected by those whose authority was likely to have too great weight with the students of medicine. He officiated as a professor, with the title of lecturer only, till 1709, when the professorship of medicine and botany was conferred on him: his inaugural oration was upon the simplicity of true medical science, wherein, exploding the fallacies and ostentation of alchemistical and metaphysical writers, he reinstates medicine on the ancient foundation of observation and experiments. In a few years he enriched the physic-garden with such a number of plants, that it was found necessary to enlarge it to twice its original extent. In 1714, he arrived to the highest dignity in the university, the rectorship; and, at its expiration, delivered an oration on the method of obtaining certainty in physics. Here, having asserted our ignorance of the first principles of things, and that all our knowledge of their qualities is derived from experiments, he was thence led to reprehend many systems of the philosophers, and in particular that of Des Cartes, the idol of the times. This drew upon him the outrageous invectives of Mr. R. Andala, a Cartesian, professor of divinity and philosophy at Franeker, who sounded the alarm, that the church was in danger; and that the introduction of scepticism, and even Spinosism, must be the consequence of undermining the Cartesian system by such a professed ignorance of the principles of things his virulence was carried to such a degree, that the governors of the university thought themselves in honour obliged (notwithstanding Boernaave’s remonstrances to the contrary) to insist upon his retracting his aspersions. He accordingly made a recantation, with offers of further satisfaction to which Boerhaave generously replied, that the most agreeable satisfaction he could receive was, that so eminent a divine should have no more trouble on his account. In 1728, he was elected of the academy of sciences at Paris; and, in 1730, of the royal society of London. In 1718, he succeeded Le Mort in the professorship of chemistry and made an oration on this subject, “That chemistry was capable of clearing itself from its own errors.” August 1722, he was taken ill and confined to his bed for six months, with exquisite arthritic pains; he suffered another violent illness in 1727; and being threatened with a relapse in 1729, he found himself under the necessity of resigning the professorships of botany and chemistry. This gave occasion to an elegant oration, in which he recounts many fortunate incidents of his life, and returns his grateful acknowledgements to those who contributed thereto. Yet he was not less assiduous in his private labours till the year 1737, when a difficulty of breathing first seized him, and afterwards gradually increased. In a letter to baron Bassand, he writes thus of himself “An imposthumation of the lungs, which has daily increased for these last three months, almost suffocates me upon the least motion if it should continue to increase without breaking, I must sink under it; if it should break, the event is still' dubious happen what may, why should I be concerned since it cannot be but according to the will of the Supreme Being, what else should 1 desire God be praised In th mean time, I am not wanting in the use of the most approved remedies, in order to mitigate the disease, by promoting maturation, but am no ways anxious about the success of them I have lived to upwards of sixty-eight years, and always cheerful.” Finding also unusual pulsations of the artery in the right side of the neck, and intermissions of the pulse, he concluded there were polypous concretions between the heart and lungs, with a dilatation of the vessels. Sept. 8, 1738, he wrote his case to Dr. Mortimer, secretary of the royal society and for some days there were flattering hopes of his recovery but they soon vanished, and he died the 23d, aged almost seventy.

, an Italian scholar and writer of considerable eminence, was born at Verona in 1427, and in 1451 entered the congregation of the regular canons of St. John of Lateran, where he bore several employments, as visitor of the order, procurator-general, and abbot of Fiesole in Tuscany. Cosmo de Medici, who had a high respect for him, spent seventy thousand crowns in the repairs of that monastery, and it was in the church belonging to it that Bosso delivered the ensigns of the cardinalship to John de Medici, afterwards pope Leo X. Sixtus VI. also employed him in many important affairs, particularly in reforming the religious houses of Genoa, and other neighbouring districts, and he thrice offered him a valuable bishopric, which he refused. He vigorously opposed the decree of pope Innocent VIII. which ordered all sorts of monks to pay part of their yearly revenues to the clerks of the apostolic chamber. Hermolaus Barbarus was his pupil and guest at Fiesole, and Picus of Mirandula, his friend. He died at Padua in 1502. Mr. Roscoe says he was a profound scholar, a close reasoner, and a convincing orator; and to these united a candid mind, an inflexible integrity, and an interesting simplicity of life and manners. His literary productions were, l.“De Instituendo Sapientia animo,” Bologna, 1495. 2. “De veris et salutaribus animi gaudiis,” Florence, 1491. 3, “Epistolar. Lib. tres,” or rather three volumes, printed 1493, 1498, 1502. Some orations of his are in the collection entitled “Recuperationes Fsesulanse,” a rare and beautiful book, said to have been printed in 1483. His whole works were published by P. Ambrosini, at Bologna, 1627, with the exception of the third book, or volume, of letterS| which, on account of its extreme rarity, was at that time unknown to the editor. His moral writings were very highly esteemed; and one of his pieces on female dress, “de vanis mulierum ornamentis,” excited a considerable interest. The editor of Fabricius throws some doubts on the date of the “Recuperationes,” and if there be letters in it dated 1492 and 1493, it is more probable that it is a typographical error for 1493.

Of his person and character, his biographer informs us that he “was of a middle stature, and active, but his mien and presence not altogether so great as his endowments of mind. His complexion was highly sanguine, pretty deeply tinctured with choler, which in his declining years became predominant, and would sometimes overflow, not without some tartness of expression, but it proceeded no farther. As he was a great lover of plain-dealing and plain-speaking, so his conversation was free and familiar, patient of any thing in discourse but obstinacy; his speech ready and intelligible, smooth and strong, free from affectation of phrase or fancy, saying it was a boyish sport to hunt for words, and argued a penury of matter, which would always find expression for itself. His understanding was very good, and greatly improved by labour and study. As a scholar, his excellency lay in the rational and argumentative part of learning. He was also well acquainted with ecclesiastical and other histories; and in the pulpit an excellent persuasive orator. He was a firm friend to the church of England, bold in the defence of it, and patient in suffering for it; yet he was very far from any thing like bigotry. He had a great allowance and charity for men of different persuasions, looking upon those churches as in a tottering condition that stood upon nice opinions. Accordingly, he made a distinction between articles necessary for peace and order, and those that are necessary to salvation; and he often declared, that the church was not to be healed but by general propositions.”

, of a noble family of Florence, in the fifteenth century, was surnamed Lippus, on account of the loss of his sight, which did not, however, prevent his becoming a scholar of much reputation, and an orator, musician, and poet. His fame procured him an invitation from Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, to teach oratory, which he accepted, and taught at the university of fiada. After returning to Florence, he took the habit of the friars of St. Augustin, was made priest some time after, and preached to numerous auditories. He died of the plague at Rome, in 1497. Wonders are told of his powers of extempore versification, and he is classed among the first of the improvisator!. As to his preaching, Bosso says that those who heard him might fancy they listened to a Plato, an Aristotle, and a Theopfcrastus; he is yet more extravagant in noticing his extempore effusions. The circumstance, says he, which placed him above all other poets, is, that the verses they compose with so much labour, he composed and sang impromptu, displaying all the perfections of memory, style, and genius. At Verona, on one occasion, before a numerous assemblage of persons of rank, he took up his lyre, and handled every subject proposed in verse of every measure, and being asked to exert his improvisitation on the illustrious men of Verona, without a moment’s consideration or hesitation, he sang the praises, in beautiful poetry, of Catullus, Cornelius Nepos, and Pliny the elder; nay, he delivered in the same extempore manner all the subjects in Pliny’s thirty-seven books of natural historj r without omitting any one circumstance worthy of notice. Whatever credit may be given to these prodigies, his works prove him to have been a man of real learning. The principal of these are: 1. “Libri duo paradoxorum Chris ­tianorum,” Basil, 1498, Rome, 1531, Basil, 1543, and Cologn, 157,3. 2. “Dialogus de humanae vitae conditione et toleranda corporis aegritudine,” Basil, 1493, and 1543, and Vienna, 1541. 3. “De ratione scribendi Epistolas,” Basil, 1498, 1549, Cologn, 1573. Among his manuscripts, which are very numerous, Fabricius mentions one “de laudibus musicae.” Julius Niger mentions also some works of his on the laws commentaries on St. Paul’s epistles, and the Bible histories, in heroic verse, but, whether printed, does not appear.

, born at Tours in 1660, became Jesuit in 1675, and died at Paris in 1741, at the age of eighty-one. He was revisor and editor of the sermons of his brethren Bourdaloue, Cheminais, and Giroust, Paris, 18 vols. 8vo, and 12mo. Pere la Rue applied to him on this occasion the epithet made for St. Martin: “Trium mortuorum suscitator magnificus.” He published likewise an edition of the “GEuvres spirituelles” of le Vallois, with a life of the author. Bretonneau was a preacher himself. His sermons, in 7 volumes 12mo, published in 1743 by Berruyer, are composed with eloquence. He was deficient in the graces of action; but he had all the other parts of a good orator. His private virtues gave considerable weight to his sermons. Bretonneau also wrote, 1. “Reflections pour les jeunes-gens qui entrent dans le monde,” 12mo. 2. “Abrege” de la vie de Jacques II." 12mo, taken from the papers of his confessor. It is a panegyric from which historians cannot extract much.

, bishop of Exeter, was born at Ipswich in Suffolk, in 1592. His father, who was a merchant of that place, dying when he was but a few weeks old, his mother took due care of his education, in which he made a very considerable progress. At the age of fourteen, he was sent to Pembroke-hall in Cambridge, of which he successively became scholar and fellow; and there he distinguished himself by his facetious and inoffensive wit, his eloquence, and his great skill and knowledge in philosophy, history, poetry, &c. He took his master’s degree in 1617, B. D. in 1621, and D. D. in 1626. He was appointed prevaricator when James I. visited the university, and discharged that employment to the universal aUmiration of the whole audience. His first preferments were, the rectory of Barley in Hertfordshire, and a prebend of Ely in 1621, to both which he was collated by Dr. Nicholas Felton, bishop of Ely. July 15, 1628, he was incorporated doctor of divinity at Oxford. On the 2 1st of September, 16-29, he was collated to the prebend of Tachbrook, in the cathedral church of Lichfield, which he quitted September 19, 1631, when he was admitted to the archdeaconry of Coventry. He was likewise master of Catherine-hall in Cambridge, and proved a great benefit and ornament both to that college and the whole university. In 1637, 1638, 1643, and 1644, he executed the office of vice-chancellor, to the universal satisfaction of all people, and to his own great credit. In 1641, he was presented to the eleventh stall or prebend in the church of Durham, by Dr. Thomas Morton, bishop of that diocese, to whom he was chaplain. Upon the translation of Dr. Joseph Hall to the bishopric of Norwich, Dr. Brown rig was nominated to succeed him in the see of Exeter, in 1641. Accordingly he was elected March 3 1, 1642; confirmed May 14; consecrated the day following; and installed the 1st of June. But the troubles that soon after followed, did not permit him long to enjoy that dignity. Before the beginning of them, he was much esteemed, and highly commended, by his relation John Pym, and others of the presbyterian stamp: but they forsook him, only because he was a bishop; and suffered him to be deprived of his revenues, so that he was almost reduced to want. Nay, once he was assaulted, and like to have been stoned by the rabble, his episcopal character being his only crime. About 1645, he was deprived of his mastership of Catherine-hall> on account of a sermon preached by him before the university, on the king’s inauguration, at some passages of which, offence was taken by the parliament party; and neither his piety, gravity, or learning, were sufficient to preserve him in his station. Being thus robbed of all, he retired to the house of Thomas Rich, of Sunning, esq. in Berkshire, by whom he was generously entertained: and there, and sometimes at London, at Highgate, and St. Edmundsbury, spent several years. During this time, he had the courage to advise Oliver Cromwell to restore king Charles II. to his just rights, but yet he suffered in his reputation, as not being zealous enough for the church. About a year before his decease, he was invited to be a preacher at the Temple, in London, with a handsome allowance; and accordingly he went and settled there, in good lodgings furnished for him. But his old distemper, the stone, coming upon him with greater violence than usual, and being attended with the dropsy and the infirmities of age, they all together put an end to his life, on the 7th of December, 1659: he was buried the 17th following in the Temple church, where there is an epitaph over him. He was once married, but never had a child. Though he was very elaborate and exact in his compositions, and completely wrote his sermons, yet he could not be persuaded to print any thing in his life-time. Bishop Brownrig, as to his person, was tall and comely. The majesty of his presence was so allayed with meekness, candour, and humility, that no man was farther from any thing morose or supercilious. He had a great deal of wit, as well as wisdom; and was an excellent scholar, an admirable orator, an acute disputant, a pathetic preacher, and a prudent governor, full of judgment, courage, constancy, and impartiality. He was, likewise, a person of that soundness of judgment, of that conspicuity for an unspotted life, and of that unsuspected integrity, that he was a complete pattern to all. Dr. Gauden, who had known him above thirty years, declares that he never heard of any thinor said or done by him, which a wise and good man would have wished unsaid or undone. Some other parts of Dr. Gauden’s character of him may be supposed to proceed from the, warmth of friendship. Echard says of him, that “he was a great man for the Anti-Arminian cause (for he was a rigid Calvinist), yet a mighty champion for the liturgy and ordination by bishops: and his death was highly lamented by men of all parties.' 7 Baxter, Neal, and other writers of the nonconformist party, are no less warm in his praises. He was one of those excellent men with whom archbishop Tillotson cultivated an acquaintance at his first coming to London, and by whose preaching and example he formed himself. After his death some of his sermons were published, under the title” Forty Sermons, &c." 1662, fol. and reprinted with the addition of twenty-five, making a second volume, 1674, fol. His style is rather better than that of many of his contemporaries.

Of his talents and acquirements it would be difficult to speak, did we not trust to his long and justly-established fame to fill up the deficiencies of our description. The richness of his mind illustrated every subject he touched upon. In conversing with him he attracted by his novelty, variety, and research; in parting from him, we involuntarily exclaimed “What an extraordinary man!” As an orator, though not so grand and commanding in his manner as lord Chatham, whose form of countenance and penetrating eye gave additional force to his natural and acquired talents, yet he had excellencies which always gave him singular pre-eminence in the senate. He was not (though it was evident he drew from these great resources) like Cicero, or Demosthenes, or any one else; the happy power of diversifying his matter, and placing it in various relations, was all his own; and here he was generally truly sublime and beautiful. He had not, perhaps, always the art of concluding in the right place, partly owing to the vividness of his fancy, and the redundancy of his matter; and partly owing to that irritability of temper which he himself apologizes for to his friends in his last notice of them; but those speeches which he gave the public do not partake of this fault, which shew that in his closet his judgment returned to its usual standard.

, the most eminent schoolmaster in his time, was the second son of Richard Busby, of the city of Westminster, gent, but born at Lutton in Lincolnshire, September 22, 1606. He received his education in Westminster-school, as a king’s scholar; and in 1624 was elected student of Christ Church. He took the degree of bachelor of arts Oct. 21, 1628; and that of master June 18, 1631; at which time he was esteemed a great master of the Greek and Latin tongues, and a complete orator. Towards the expence of taking his degrees, a sum was honourably voted him by the vestry of St. Margaret, Westminster (in all 11l. 13s. 4d.) which he afterwards as honourably repaid, adding to it an annual sum towards the maintenance of the parish school. On the 1st of July 1639, he was admitted to the prebend and rectory of Cudworth, with the chapel of Knowle annexed, in the church of Wells; of which he lost the profits during the civil wars; but found means to keep his student’s place, and other preferment. He was appointed master of Westminster-school, December 13, 1640; in which laborious station he continued above fifty-five years, and bred up the greatest number of learned scholars that ever adorned any age or nation . But he met with great uneasiness from the second master, Edward Bagshaw, who endeavoured to supplant him; but was himself removed out of his place for his insolence, in May 1658 (See Edward Bagshaw). After the restoration, Mr. Busby’s merit being noticed> his majesty conferred on him a prebend of Westminster, into which he was installed July 5, 1660; and the llth of August following, he was made treasurer and canon-residentiary of Wells. On October 19, 1660, he took the degree of D. D. At the coronation of king Charles II. April 1661, he carried the Ampulla. In the convocation, which met June 24, the same year, he was proctor for the chapter of Bath and Wells; and one of those who approved and subscribed the Common Prayer-Book. He gave two hundred and fifty pounds towards repairing and beautifying Christ Church college and cathedral; and intended, but never completed the foundation of two lectures in the same college, one for the Oriental languages, and another for the mathematics; but he left a stipend for a catechetical lecture, 10 be read in one of the parish churches in Oxford, by a member of Christ Church . He contributed also to the repair of Lichfield church. As for his many other benefactions, they are not upon record, because they were done in a private manner. This great man, after a loBg, healthy, and laborious life, died April 6, 1695, aged eighty-nine, and was buried in Westminsterabbey, where there is a curious monument erected to him. He composed several books for the use of his school, as, 1. “A short institution of Grammar,” Cambr. 1647, 8vo. 2. “Juvenalis et Persii Satira?,” Lond. 1656, purged of all indecent passages. 3. “An English Introduction to the Latin Tongue,” Lond. 1659, &c. 8vo. 4. “Pvlartiaiis Epigrammata selecta,” Lond. 1661, 12mo. 5. “Grsecae Grammaticae Rudimenta,” Lond. 1663, 8vo. 6. “Nomenclatura Brevis Reformata, adjecto cum Syllabo Verborum et Adjectivorum,” At the end is printed “Duplex Centenarius Proverbiorum Anglo-Latino-Graecorum,” Lond. 1667, &c. 8vo. 7. “Ανθολογία δευτέρα: sive Græcorum Epigrammatum Florilegium novum,” Lond. 1673, &c. 8vo. 8. “Rudimentum Anglo-Latinum, Grammatica literalis et numeralis,” Lond. 1688, 8vo. 9. “Rudimentum Grammaticæ Græco-Latinæ Metricum,” Lond. 1689, 8vo.

, earl of Ossory, son of the former, was born in the castle of Kilkenny, July 9, 1634. He distinguished himself by a noble bravery, united to the greatest gentleness and modesty, which very early excited the jealousy of Cromwell, who committed him to the Tower; where, falling ill of a fever, after being confined near eight months, he was discharged. He afterwards went over to Flanders, and on the restoration attended the king to England; and from being appointed colonel of foot in Ireland, was raised to the rank of lieutenant-general of the army in that kingdom. On the 14th of September 1666, he was summoned by writ to the English house of lords, by the title of lord Butler, of Moore-park. The same year, being at Euston in Suffolk, he happened to hear the firing of guns at sea, in the famous battle with the Dutch that began the 1st of June. He instantly prepared to go on board the fleet, where he arrived on the 3d of that month; and had the satisfaction of informing the duke of ^Ibemarle, that prince Rupert was hastening to join him. He had his share in the glorious actions of that and the succeeding day. His reputation was much increased by his behaviour in the engagement off Southwold Bay. In 1673 he was successively made rear-admiral of the blue and the red squadrons; and on the 10th of September, the same year, was appointed admiral of the whole fleet, during the absence of prince Rupert. In 1677 he commanded the English troops in the service of the prince of Orange; and at the battle ojf Mons contributed greatly to the retreat of marshal Luxemburg, to whom Lewis XIV. was indebted for the greatest part of his military glory. His speech, addressed to the earl of Shaftesbury, in vindication of his father, was universally admired: it even confounded that intrepid orator, who was in the senate what the earl of Ossory was in the field. He died July 30, 1680, aged forty-six. The duke of Ormond his father said, “he would not exchange his dead son for any living son in Christendom.”

, a canon of the church of Ferrara, and a poet and orator of considerable distinction, was born at Ferrara in 1479, and, as generally supposed, was the natural son of a person who was an apostolic notary. He studied under Peter Pomponazzo, but devoting himself to a military life, served under the emperor Maximilian. He afterwards engaged in the service. of Julius II. and was employed in several important negociations. Returning to Ferrara, he obtained the particular favour of the family of Este, and was chosen to accompany the cardinal Ippolito on his journeyMiuo Hungary. About the year 1520, he was appointed professor of the belles lettres in the university of Ferrara, which situation he filled with great credit until his death in 1541. He was interred in the library of the Jacobins, to which he bequeathed his books, and on which are two inscriptions to his memory, one signifying that “by continual study, he had learned to despise earthly things, and not to be insensible of his own ignorance,” (ignorantiam suam non ignorare.) His works were published at Basil in 1541, one vol. folio, or according to Moreri, in 1544, and contain sixteen books of epistles, and philosophical, political, and critical dissertations on various subjects, and he also wrote some Latin poetry, which the critics of his time prefer to his prose, the latter being heavy, unequal, and affected; his poetry was published with the poems of John Baptista Pigna and Louis Ariosto, at Venice, 1553, 8vo. He appears to have corresponded with Erasmus, whom, like many others, he blamed for his undecided character in the questions which arose out of the reformation.

Dr. Campbell continued for twelve years to discharge the offices of principal of Marischal college-, and of one of the ministers of Aberdeen. In the former capacity he was equally esteemed by the professors and students; as he united great learning to a conduct strictly virtuous, and to manners equally gentle and pleasant. lit the latter office he lived in the greatest harmony with his colleagues, over whom he affected no superiority; and by all his hearers was esteemed as a worthy man, a good preacher, and one of the best lecturers they had ever heard. In lecturing, indeed, he excelled, while he rarely composed sermons, but preached from a few, and sometimes without any notes. Yet his discourses on particular occasions, were such as maintained his reputation. In June 1771, he was, on a vacancy by resignation, elected professor of divinity in Marischal college. This appointment was attended with the resignation of his pastoral charge, as one of the ministers of Aberdeen; but as minister of Gray Friars, an office conjoined to the professorship, he had to preach once every Sunday in one of the churches, and besides this, had the offices both of principal and professor of divinity to discharge. In the latter office he increased the times of instructing his pupils, so thak they heard nearly double the number of lectures which were usual with his predecessors, and he so arranged his subjects, that every student who chose to attend regularly during the shortest period prescribed by the laws of the church, might hear a complete course of lectures on thelgy embracing, under the theoretical part, every thing that the student of divinity should know; and under the practical branch, every thing that he should do, as a reader of sacred or church history, a biblical critic, a polemic divine, a pulpit orator, a minister of a parish, and a member of the church courts on the Scotch establishment. Some idea may be formed of the value of his labours, by the canons of scripture criticism, and a few other prelections on the same subject, which are included in preliminary dissertations/printed along with his “Translation of the Gospels,” and by the “Lectures” published after his death. In 1776 Dr. Campbell published his “Philosophy of Rhetoric,” which established his reputation as an excellent grammarian, an accurate and judicious critic, a scholar of delicate imagination and taste, and a philosopher of great acuteness and deep penetration. Our author also published a few occasional sermons, which were much admired, but not equally. That “On the Spirit of the Gospel,” 1771, placed him at variance with many members of his own church, who adhered more closely to the Caivinistic creed than the doctor. That in 1776, a Fast Sermon on account of the American war, inculcating the duty of allegiance, was circulated in an edition of six thousand, in America, but it had no effect, at that period of irritation among the colonies, in persuading the Americans that they had no right to throw off their allegiance. In 1779, when a considerable alarm, followed by riots in Scotland, took place in consequence of a bill introduced into parliament; for the relief of the Roman catholics, Dr. Campbell published an address well calculated to quiet the public mind, at the same time that he took occasion to express his abhorrence of the tenets of Popery. The same year he published a sermon on the happy influences of religion on civil society. It has already been noticed that he did not often, write sermons, but the few which he did compose, were in general highly finished.

All parties allow him to have been a most extraordinary: man; of admirable parts, an eloquent orator, a subtile philosopher and skilful disputant, an exact preacher both in Latin and English, and a man of good temper and address. Besides the works already mentioned, he wrote, 1. “Nine Articles directed to the lords of the privy-council,” 1581. 2.“The History of Ireland,” noticed above, published by sir James Ware, Dublin, 1633, fol. The original ms. is in the British Museum. 3. “Chronologia universalis.” 4. te Conferences in the Tower,“published by the English divines, 1583, 4to. 5 r” Nar ratio de Divortio,“Antwerp, 1631. 6.” Orationes,“ibid. 1631. 7.” Epistoke variee,“ibid. 1631. 8.” De Imitatione Rhetorica," ibid. 1631. His life, written by Paul Bombino, a Jesuit, is very scarce the best edition is that of Mantua, 1620, 8vo.

, a learned bishop in the seventeenth century, son of Guy, second son of Thomas Carleton, of Carleton-hall, in Cumberland, was born at Norham, in Northumberland, of whose important castle his father was then governor. By the care of the eminent Bernard Giipin, he was educated in grammar-learning and when tit for the university, sent by the same generous person to Edmund-hall in Oxford, in the beginning of the year 1576, and was by him chiefly maintained in his studies. On the 12th of February 1579-80, he took his degree of B. A. at the completing of which, he exceeded all that performed their exercises at that time. The same year he was elected probationer fellow of Merton-college, and remained in that society above five years before he proceeded in his faculty, not taking the degree of M. A. till June the 14th, 1585. While he remained in college, he was esteemed a great orator and poet, and in process of time became a better disputant in divinity, than he had before been in philosophy. What preferments he had, is not mentioned, nor does it appear that he was possessed of anv dignity in the church till he became a bishop. After having continued many years in the university, and taken, the degree of B. D. May 16, 1594, and that of Doctor, December 1, 1613, he was advanced to the bishopric of Landaff, to which he was confirmed July 11, 1613, and consecrated at Lambeth the next day. The same year he was sent by king James T. with three other English divine*, Dr. Hail, afterwards bishop of Exeter, Dr. Davenant, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, and Dr. Ward, master of Sidney-college, Cambridge, and one from Scotland, Dr. W T alter Balcanqual, afterwards dean of Durham, to the synod of Dort; where he stood up in favour of episcopacy, and behaved so well in every respect to the credit of our nation, that after his return he was, upon the translation, of Dr. Harsnet to Norwich, elected to succeed him in the see of Chichester, September 8, 16 19, and confirmed the 20th of the same month. He departed this life in May 1628, and was buried the 27th of that month in the choir of his cathedral church at Chichester, near the altar. He was a person uf solid judgment, and of various reading; well versed in the fathers and schoolmen; wanting nothing that could render him a complete divine; a bitter enemy to the Papists, and in the point of Predestination a rigid Calvinist. “I have loved him,” says Mr. Camden, “for his excellent proficiency in divinity, and other polite parts of learning.” Echard and Fuller also characterize him in very high terms.

, an eminent protestant divine, was born in 1701, at Geneva, where he probably received the first rudiments of education. The church being chosen for his profession, after passing through the usual probationary exercises, he was admitted into the order of priesthood. In the ministry his reputation as a preacher and an orator soon became so popular and extensive, that in 1728 he was elected pastor at the Hague, and his conduct in this establishment, while it contributed to his own reputation, redounded no less to the honour of those who had appointed him. Having adorned his ministry by the purity of his manners, the excellence of the discourses which he delivered from the pulpit, and his numerous writings in defence of revealed religion, he died in 1786, at the age of eighty-five, after having punctually discharged his duty as a pastor during the period of fifty-eight years. The unfortunate supported by his consolation, the youth enlightened by his instructions, and the poor succoured by his charity, lamenting the loss which they had sustained by the death of a benefactor and a friend, proved more eloquent attestations of his merit, than any panegyric which might have been pronounced by the most sublime orator. His sermons were distinguished by a perspicuous style and a pure morality. They seemed to flow not only from a man who practised what he taught, but from one who, acquainted with the inmost recesses of the human heart, could exert his eloquence to win his hearers to the interests of virtue and religion. His portrait, which is prefixed to his translation of the Holy Bible, seems to confirm the relation of his friends, who say that his countenance was interesting and attractive. In his manners he was polite and attentive; in his address mild and insinuating. His literary excellence consisted in a judicious and happy arrangement of his subjects, delivered in a plain and unaffected style. He made no pretensions to originality, but he illustrated the works of other writers, by introducing them to his countrymen in a language that was more familiar to them.

, D. D. was the son of the rev. William Chapman, rector of Stratfield-say in Hampshire, where he was probably born in 1704. He was educated at King’s college, Cambridge, A. B. 1727, and A. M. 1731. His first promotion was the rectory of Mersham in Kent, and of Alderton, with the chapel of Smeeth; to which he was appointed in 1739 and 1744, being then domestic chaplain to archbishop Potter. He was also archdeacon of Sudbury, and treasurer of Chichester, two options. Being educated at Eton, he was a candidate for the provostship of that college, and lost it by a small majority, and after a most severe contest with Dr. George. Among his pupils he had the honour to class the first lord Camden, Dr. Ashton, Horace Walpole, Jacob Bryant, sir W. Draper, sir George Baker, and others who afterwards attained to considerable distinction in literature. His first publication was entitled “The Objections of a late anonymous writer (Collins) against the book of Daniel, considered/' Cambridge, 1728, 8vo. This was followed by his” Remarks on Dr. Middleton’s celebrated Letter to Dr. Waterland,“published in 1731, and which has passed through three editions. In his” Eusebius,“2 vols. 8vo, he defended Christianity against the objections of Mor-­gan, and against those of Tindal in his” Primitive Antiquity explained and vindicated.“The first volume of Eusebius, published in 1739, was dedicated to archbishop Potter; and when the second appeared, in 1741, Mr. Chapman styled himself chaplain to his grace. In the same year he was made archdeacon of Sudbury, and was honoured with the diploma of D. D. by the university of Oxford. He is at this time said to have published the” History of the ancient Hebrews vindicated, by Theophanes Cantabrigiensis,“8vo but this was the production of Dr. Squire. He published two tracts relating to” Phlegon,“in answer to Dr. Sykes, who had maintained that the eclipse mentioned by that writer had no relation to the wonderful darkness that happened at our Saviour’s crucifixion. In 1738 Dr. Chapman published a sermon preached at the consecration of bishop Mavvson, and four other single sermons, 1739, 1743, 1748, and 1752. In a dissertation written in elegant Latin, and addressed to Mr. (afterwards Dr.) Tunstall, then public orator of the university of Cambridge, and published with his Latin epistle to Dr. Middleton concerning the genuineness of some of Cicero’s epistles, 1741, Dr. Chapman proved that Cicero published two editions of his Academics; an original thought that had escaped all former commentators, and which has been applauded by Dr. Ross, bishop of Exeter, in his edition of Cicero’s” Epistolse ad familiares,“1749. In 1744 Mr. Tunstall published” Observations on the present Collection of Epistles between Cicero and M. Brutus, representing several evident marks of forgery in those epistles,“&c. to which was added a” Letter from Dr. Chapman, on the ancient numeral characters of the Roman legions.“Dr. Middleton had asserted, that the Roman generals, when they had occasion to raise new legions in distant parts of the empire, used to name them according to the order in which they themselves had raised them, without regard to any other legions whatever. This notion Dr. Chapman controverts and confutes. According to Dr. Middleton there might have been two thirtieth legions in the empire. This Dr. Chapman denies to have been customary from the foundation of the city to the time when Brutus was acting against Anthony, but affirms nothing of the practice after the death of Brutus. To this Dr. Middleton made no reply. In 1745 Dr. Chapman was employed in assisting Dr. Pearce, afterwards bishop of Rochester, in his edition of” Cicero de Officiis.“About this time Dr. Chapman introduced Mr. Tunstall and Mr. Hall to archbishop Potter, the one as his librarian, the other as his chaplain, and therefore had some reason to resent their taking an active part against him in the option cause, though they both afterwards dropped it. Dr. Chapman’s above-mentioned attack on Dr. Middleton, which he could not parry, and his interposition in defence of his much-esteemed friend Dr. Waterland, provoked Dr. Middleton to retaliate in 1746, by assailing him in what he thought a much more vulnerable part, in his Charge to the archdeaconry of Sudbury, entitled <e Popery the true bane of letters.” In 1747, to Mr. Mounteney’s edition of some select orations of Demosthenes, Dr. Chapman prefixed in Latin, without his name, observations on the Commentaries commonly ascribed to Ulpian, and a map of ancient Greece adapted to Demosthenes. Mr. Mounteney had been schoolfellow with Dr. Chapman at Eton, and was afterwards a baron of the exchequer in Ireland. If archbishop Potter had lived to another election, Dr. Chapman was intended for prolocutor. As executor and surviving trustee to that prelate, his conduct in that trust, particularly his presenting himself to the precentorship of Lincoln, void by the death of Dr. Trimnell (one of his grace’s options), was brought into chancery by the late Dr. Richardson, when lord keeper Henley in 1760 made a decree in Dr. Chapman’s favour; but, on an appeal to the house of lords, the decree was reversed, and Dr. Richardson ordered to be presented, When Mr. Yorke had finished his argument, in which he was very severe on Dr. Chapman, Mr. Pratt, afterwards lord Camden, who had been his pupil, and was then his counsel, desired him, by a friend, not to be uneasy, for that the next day he “would wash him as white as snow.” Thinking his case partially stated by Dr. Burn, in his “Ecclesiastical Law,' 1 vol. I. (article Bishops), as it was taken from the briefs of his adversaries, he expostulated with him on the subject by letter, to which the doctor candidly replied,” that he by no means thought him criminal, and in the next edition of his work would certainly add his own representation." On this affair, however, Dr. Hurd passes a very severe sentence in his correspondence with Warburton lately published. Dr. Chapman died the 34th of October, 1784, in the 80th year of his age.

, was born at Paris in 1541. Though his parents were in narrow circumstances, yet discovering their son’s capacity, they were particularly attentive to his education. After making a considerable proficiency in grammar-learning, he applied to logic, metaphysics, moral and natural philosophy, and afterwards studied civil and common law at the universities of Orleans and Bourges, and commenced doctor in that faculty. Upon his return to Paris, he was admitted an advocate in the court of parliament. He always declared the bar to be the best and most improving school in the world; and accordingly attended at all the public hearings for five or six years: but foreseeing that preferment in this way, if ever attained at all, was like to come very slow, as he had neither private interest, nor relations among the solicitors and proctors of the court, he gave over that employment, and closely applied to the study of divinity. By his superior pulpit eloquence, he soon came into high reputation with the greatest and most learned men of his time, insomuch that the bishops seemed to strive which of them should get him into his diocese; making him an offer of being theological canon or divinity lecturer in their churches, and of other dignities and benefices, besides giving him noble presents. He was successively theologal of Bazas, Aqcs, Lethoure, Agen, Cahors, and Condom, canon and schoolmaster in the church of Bourdeaux, and chanter in the church of Condom. Queen Margaret, duchess of Bulois, entertained him for her preacher in ordinary; and the king, though at that time a protestant, frequently did him the honour to be one of his audience. He was also retained by the cardinal d'Armagnac, the pope’s legate at Avignon, who had a great value for him; yet amidst all these promotions, he never took any degree or title in divinity, but satisfied himself with deserving and being capable of the highest. After about eighteen years absence from Paris, he resolved to end his days there; and being a lover of retirement, vowed to become a Carthusian. On his arrival at Paris, he communicated his intention to the prior of the order, but was rejected, notwithstanding his most pressing entreaties. They told him that he could not be received on account of his age, then about forty-eight, and that the order required all the vigour of youth to support its austerities. He next addressed himself to the Celestines at Paris, but with the same success, and for the same reasons: in this embarrassment, he was assured by three learned casuists, that as he was no ways accessary to the non -performance of his vow, it was no longer binding; and that he might, with a very safe conscience, continue in the world as a secular. He preached, however, a course of Lent sermons at Angers in 1589. Going afterwards to Bourdeaux, he contracted a very intimate friendship with Michael de Montagne, author of the well known Essays, from whom he received all possible testimonies of regard; for, among other things, Montagne ordered by his last will, that in case he should leave no issue-male of his own, M. Charron should, after his decease, be entitled to bear the coat of arms plain, as they belonged to his noble family, and Charron, in return, made Montagne’s brotherin-law his residuary legatee. He staid at Bourdeaux from 1589 to 1593; and in that interval composed his book, entitled, “Les Trois Verge’s,” which he published in 1594. These three truths are the following 1. That there is a God and a true religion 2. That of all religions the Christian is the only true one 3. That of all the Christian communions the Roman catholic is the only true church. This work procured him the acquaintance of M. de Sulpice, Bishop and count of Cahors, who sent for him and offered him the places of his vicar-general and canon theological in his church, which he accepted. He was deputed to the general assembly of the clergy in 1595, and was chosen first secretary to the assembly. In 1599 he returned to Cahors; and in that and the following year composed eight discourses upon the sacrament of the Lord’s supper; and. others upon the knowledge and providence of God, the redemption of the world, the communion of saints, and likewise his “books of Wisdom.” Whilst he was thus employed, the bishop of Condom, to draw him into his diocese, presented him with the chaptership in his church; and the theologal chair falling vacant about the same time, made him an offer of that too, which -Charron accepted, and resolved to settle there. In 1601 he printed at Bourdeaux his books “of Wisdom,” which gave him a great reputation, and made his character generally known. October 1603, he made a journey to Paris, to thank the Bishop of Boulogne; who, in order to have him near himself, had oifered him the place of theologal canon. This he was disposed to accept of; but the moisture and coldness of the air at Boulogne, and its nearness to the sea, not only made it, he said to a friend, a melancholy and unpleasant place, but very unwholesome too; adding, that the sun was his visible god, as God was his invisible sun. At Paris he began a new edition of his books “of Wisdom,” of which he lived to see but three or four sheets printed, dying Nov. 16, 1603, of an apoplexy. The impression of the new edition of his book “of Wisdom,” with alterations by the author, occasioned by the offence taken at some passages in the former, was completed in 1604, by the care of a friend; but as the Bourdeaux edition contained some things that were either suppressed or softened in the subsequent one, it was much sought after by the curious. Hence the booksellers of several cities reprinted the book after that edition; and this induced a Paris bookseller to print an edition, to which he subjoined all the passages of the first edition which had been struck out or corrected, and all those which the president Jeannin, who was employed by the chancellor to examine the book, judged necessary to be changed. This edition appeared in 1707. There have been two translations of it into English, the last by George Stanhope, D. D. printed in 1697. Dr. Stanhope says, that M. Charron “was a person that feared God, led a pious and good life, was charitably disposed, a person of wisdom and conduct, serious and considerate; a great philosopher, an eloquent orator, a famous and powerful preacher, richly furnished and adorned with the most excellent virtues and graces both moral and divine; such as made him very remarkable and singular, and deservedly gave him the character of a good man and a good Christian; such as preserve a great honour and esteem for his memory among persons of worth and virtue, and will continue to do so as long as the world shall last.” From this high praise considerable deductions may surely be made. Charron’s fame has scarcely outlived his century; his book on “Wisdom” certainly abounds in ingenious and original observations on moral topics, but gives a gloomy picture of human nature and society. Neither is it free from sentiments very hostile to revealed religion, but so artfully disguised as to impose on so orthodox a divine as dean Stanhope.

For his character Wood has given the following: “He was a most noted philosopher and orator, and, without doubt, a poet also; and had such an admirable faculty in reclaiming schismatics and confuting papists, that none in his time went beyond him. He had also very great skill in mathematics. He was a subtle and quick disputant, and would several times put the king’s professor to a push. Hobbes of Malmesbury would often say, that he was like a lusty fighting fellow, that did drive his enemies before him, but would often give his own party smart back-blows; and it was the current opinion of the university, that he and Lucius lord Falkland,” who by the way was his most intimate friend, “had such extraordinary clear reason, that, if the great Turk or devil were to be converted, they were able to do it. He was a man of little stature, but of great soul: which, if times had been serene, and life spared, might have done incomparable services to the church of England.” Archbishop Tillotson has spoken of him in the highest terms: “I know not how it comes to pass,” says that eminent prelate, “but so it is, that every one that offers to give a reasonable account of his faith, and to establish religion upon rational principles, is presently branded for a Socinian; of which we have a sad instance in that incomparable person Mr. Chillingworth, the glory of this age and nation: who, for no other cause that I know of, but his worthy and successful attempts to make the Christian religion reasonable, and to discover those firm and solid foundations upon which our faith is built, has been requited with this black and odious character. But, if this be Socinianism, for a man to inquire into the grounds and reasons of Christian religion, and to endeavour to give a satisfactory account why he believes it, I know no way, but that all considerate and inquisitive men, that are above fancy and enthusiasm, must be either Socinians or atheists.” Mr. Locke has also spoken of Chillingworth with equal commendation. In a small tract, containing “Some thoughts concerning reading and study for a gentleman,” after having observed that the art of speaking well consists chiefly in two things, namely, perspicuity and right reasoning, and proposed Dr. Tillotson as a pat tern for the attainment of the art of speaking clearly, he adds: “Besides perspicuity, there masjt-be also right reasoning, without which, perspicuity serves but to expose the speaker. And for attaining of this, I should propose the constant reading of Chillingworth, who, by his example, will teach both perspicuity and the way of right reasoning, better than any book that I know: and therefore will deserve to be read upon that account over and over again; not to say any thing of his argument.”

progress the sooner. The Sicilians received him every where with all the honours due to the pains he was taking in their service; and all the cities concurred in the impeachment, excepting Syracuse and Messana, with which Verres had kept up a fair correspondence, and which last continued throughout firm in its engagements to him. Cicero came back to Rome, to the surprise of his adversaries, much sooner than he was expected, with most ample proofs of Verres’s guilt, but found, what he suspected, a strong cabal formed to prolong the affair by all the arts of delay which interest or money could procure. This suggested to him to shorten the method of the proceeding, so as to bring it to an issue before the present praetor M. Glabrio, and his assessors, whom he considered as impartial judges. Instead, therefore, of spending any time in employing his eloquence, as usual, on the several articles of the charge, he only produced his witnesses to be interrogated-: whose evidence so confounded Hortensius, though the reigning orator at the bar, and usually styled the King of the forum, that he had nothing to say for his client. Verres, despairing of all defence, submitted immediately, without waiting for the sentence, to a voluntary exile; where he lived many years, forgotten and deserted by all his friends. He is said to have been relieved in this miserable situation by the generosity of Cicero; yet was proscribed and murdered after all by Marc Antony, for the sake of those fine statues and Corinthian vessels of which he had plundered the Sicilians: “happy only,” as Lactantius spys, “before his death, to have seen the more deplorable end of his old enemy and accuser Cicero.”

After this long account, which, however, we have abridged from our last edition, little need he added of Cicero’s character. It will appear that though he cherished ambition, he wanted firmness to pursue it. His lot was cast in times unfavourable to his natural temper, which was averse to contention, and he knew not how to regulate his conduct with steadiness in political commotions and civil war. His chief delight was in the society and conversation of learned men, and his works afford a decisive proof that his excellence lay in the accumulation of learning, and the display of eloquence, in which he can be compared only with Demosthenes. Their respective characters have been considered as the two great models on which all eloquence ought to be formed. In all his orations, says a modern critic, his art is conspicuous; he begins commonly with a regular exordium; and with much address prepossesses the hearers, and studies to gain their affections’. His method is clear, and his arguments are arranged with exact propriety. In a superior clearness of method, he has an advantage over Demosthenes. Every thing appears in its proper place. He never tries to move till he has attempted to convince; and in moving, particularly the softer passions, he is highly successful. No one ever knew the force of words better than Cicero. He rolls them along with the greatest beauty and magnificence; and in the structure of his sentences is eminently curious and exact. He amplifies every tiling; yet though his manner is generally diffuse, it is often happily varied and accommodated to the subject. When an important public object rouses his mind, and demands indignation and force, he departs considerably from that loose and declamatory manner to which he at other times is addicted, and becomes very forcible and vehement. This great orator, however, is not without hi? defects. In most of his orations there is too much art, even carried to a degree of ostentation. He seems often desirous of obtaining admiration rather than of operating by conviction. He is sometimes, therefore, showy rather than solid, and diffuse where he ought to have been. urgent. His sentences are always round and sonorous. They cannot be accused of monotony, since they possess variety of cadence; but from too great a fondness for magnificence, he is on some occasions deficient in strength. Though the services which he had performed to his country were very considerable, yet he is too much his own panegyrist. Ancient manners, which imposed fewer restraints on the side of decorum, may in some degree excuse, but cannot entirely justify his vanity.

As a philosopher, he rather related the opinions of others than advanced any new doctrines of his own conceptions. He attached himself chiefly to the Academic sect, but did not neglect to inform himself of the doctrines of other sects, and discovered much learning and ingenuity in refuting their dogmas. He was an admirer of the doctrine of the stoics concerning natural equity and civil law, and adopted their ideas concerning morals, although not with servility. The sect to which he was most averse was the Epicurean, but upon the whole, from the general cast of his writings, the Academic sect was best suited to his natural disposition. Through all his philosophical works, he paints in lively colours, and with all the graces of fine writing, the opinions of philosophers; and relates, in the diffuse manner of an orator, the arguments on each side of the question in dispute; but we seldom find him diligently examining the exact weight of evidence in the scale of reason, carefully deducing accurate conclusions from certain principles, or exhibiting a series of arguments in a close and systematic arrangement. On the contrary, we frequently hear him declaiming eloquently, instead of reasoning conclusively, and meet with unequivocal proofs, that he was better qualified to dispute on either side with the Academics, than to decide upon the question with the Dogmatists, and therefore appears rather to have been a warm admirer and an elegant memorialist of philosophy, than himself to have merited a place in the first order of philosophers. The editions of Cicero’s works, in whole, or in parts, are far too numerous to be specified in this place. We may, however, notice among the most curious or valuable: 1. his whole works, first edition, by Minutianus, Milan, 1498—1499, 4 vols. fol. of great rarity and price 2. By Paul Manutius, Venice, 1540 4to 10 vols. 8vo; 3. By R, Stephens, Paris, 1543, 8 vols. 8vo 4. By Lambinus, Paris, 1566, 2 vols. fol.; 5. Elzivir, Leyden, 1642, 10 vols. 8vo; 6. Gronovius, 11 vols. 12mo, and 4 vols. 4to; 7. Verburgius, Amst. 1724, 2 voLs. fol.; 4 vols. 4to; 8. Ernest, Leipsic, 1774, 8 vols. 8vo 9. Olivet, Paris, 1740, 9 vols. 4to; Geneva, 1758, 9 vols. and Oxford, 1783, 10 vols. 4to; 10. Foulis, Glasgow, 1749, 20 vols. 12mo; 11. Lallemande, Paris, 1768, 12 vols. 12mo. For his separate pieces we must refer to Dibdin and Clarke. Most of his productions have been translated into various languages, and several into English, by Melmoth, Guthrie, Jones, and others. Melmoth, as well as Middleton, has written a life of Cicero, both with some degree of partiality, but with great ability.

, an eminent French lawyer, was born at Paris June 10, 1687, and admitted a counsellor in 1706, in the grand council, where he acquired such reputation, that at the age of thirty, he was looked upon as one of the ablest canonists, and he now determined, with the advice of his friends and clients, to plead in the parliament. He was heard there with universal applause, and, from that time till his death, there was scarce any affair of importance at the palace but the public crowded to hear him, and returned convinced that M. Cochin possessed all the extraordinary talents which characterise a great orator. He was consulted from every part of the kingdom, and never ceased to serve the public by his assiduous and unremitted labours. He died at Paris, after several attacks of an apoplexy, February 24, 1747, aged 60. His works were published at Paris, 1751, and the following year, 6 vols. 4to, with his life. These, however, have not preserved his reputation undiminished; and M. la Cretelle, in along article on them in the French Mercure for April 1782, concludes with asserting that Cochin was an advocate of great merit, but a genius of the second order. This sen*­tence, however, seems in some measure to proceed from an opinion that no man can be a genius who does not introduce novelties in his profession. France has unfortunately abounded of late years in such geniuses.

, a brave soldier and a distinguished benefactor to All Souls college, Oxford, was born at Barbadoes in 1668, and had part of his education in that island. He afterwards came over to England, and was admitted a gentleman-commoner of Christ-church in Oxford, 1685; where having taken a degree in arts, he was elected a probationer fellow of All Souls college in 1639. He became perfect, it is said, not only in logic, history, and the ancient and modern languages, but likewise in poetry, physic, and divinity. Thus qualified, he went into the army, but without quitting his fellowship; and being a well-bred and accomplished gentleman, as well as a scholar, he soon recommended himself to the favour of king William. He was made captain in the first regiment of foot guards, and seems to have'been instrumental in driving the French out of the island of St. Christopher’s, which they had seized at the breaking out of the war between France and England: but it is more certain that he was at the siege of Namur in 1695. Upon the conclusion of the peace of Ryswick, he was made captaingeneral and governor in chief of the Leeward Caribhee Islands, in which office he met with some trouble: for in 1701 several articles were exhibited against him to the house of commons in England, but he was honourably acquitted from all imputations. In 1703 he was at the attack upon Guadaloupe, belonging to the French, in which he shewed great bravery, though that enterprise happened to be unsuccessful. Some time after, he resigned his government of the Leeward islands, and led a studious and retired life. For a few years before his death, he chiefly applied himself to church history and metaphysics; and his eulogist tells us, that “if he excelled in any thing, it was in metaphysical learning, of which he was perhaps the greatest master in the world.” He died in Barbadoes, April 7, 1701, and was buried there the day following; but his body was afterwards brought over to England, and interred, June 19, 1716, in All Souls chapel, Oxford. Two Latin orations to his memory were spoken there by two fellows of that college; one by Digby Cotes, M. A. the university orator, at his interment; the other the next day by Edward Young, LL. B. at the laying the foundation stone of his library. Over his grave a black marble stone was soon after laid, with no other inscription on it but Codrington.

Upon the king’s coming over he was sworn of his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. He was also one of the commissioners for the trial of the regicides; and though the Oxford historian is very severe on him on this occasion, yet his advocates are very desirous of proving that he was not any way concerned in betraying or shedding the blood of his sovereign. By letters patent, dated April 20, 1661, he was created barou Ashley of Winborne St. Giles; soon after made chancellor and nnder-treasurer of the exchequer, and then one of the lords commissioners for executing the office of high-treasurer. He was afterwards made lord lieutenant of the county of Dorset; and, April 23, 1672, created baron Cooper of Pawlet in the county of Somerset, and earl of Shaftesbury. November 4 following, he was raised to the post of lord high chancellor of England. He shone particularly in his speeches in parliament; and, if we judge only from those which he made upon swearing in the treasurer Clifford, his successor sir Thomas Osborne, and baron Thurland, we must conclude him to have been a very accomplished orator. The short time he was at the helm was a season of storms and tempests; and it is but doing him justice to say that they could not either affright or distract him. November 9, 1673, he resigned the great seal under very singular circumstances. Soon after the breaking up of the parliament, as Echard relates, the earl was sent for on Sunday morning to court; as was also sir Heneage Finch, attorney-general, to whom the seals were promised. As soon as the earl came he retired with the king into the closet, while the prevailing party waited in triumph to see him return without the purse. His lordship being alone with the king, said, “Sir, I know you intend to give the seals to the attorney-general, but 1 am sure your majesty never intended to dismiss me with contempt.” The king, who could not do an ill-natured thing, replied, “Gods fish, my lord, I will not do it with any circumstance that may look like an affront.” “Then, sir,” said the earl, “I desire your majesty will permit me to carry the seals before you to chapel, and send for them afterwards from my house.” To this his majesty readily consented; and the earl entertained the king with news and diverting stories till the very minute he was to go to chapel, purposely to amuse the courtiers and his successor, who he believed was upon the rack for fear he should prevail upon the king to change his mind. The king and the earl came out of the closet talking together and smiling, and went together to chapel, which greatly surprised, them all: and some ran immediately to tell the duke of York, that all his measures were broken. After sermon the earl went home with the seals, and that evening the king gave them to the attorneygeneral.

The eloquence and abilities of earl Cowper were highly celebrated ii> his own time he made a very conspicuous figure at the bar he was a distinguished member of both houses of parliament; his general character as a public man appears to have been entitled to high praise, from which, perhaps, in our days, it will be thought no deduction that he did not always act with the independence which rejects party connections and views. But in his conduct in the court of chancery he displayed great disinterestedness. He opposed the frequency and facility with which private bills passed in parliament; and refused the new year’s gifts, which it had been customary to present to those who held the great seal. Mr. Tindal, who had an opportunity of knowing him, says that he “was eminent for his integrity in the discharge of the office of lord chancellor, which he had twice filled. There may have been chancellors of more extensive learning, but none of more knowledge in the laws of England. His judgment was quick, and yet solid. His eloquence manly, but flowing. His manner graceful and noble.” Lord Chesterfield, in his Letters to his Son, represents earl Cowper as more distinguished, as a speaker, by the elegance of his language, and the gracefulness of his manner, than by the force of his arguments; that his strength as an orator lay by no means in his reasoning, for he often hazarded very weak ones. “But such was the purity and elegancy of his style, such the propriety and charms of his elocution, and such the gracefulness of his action, that he never spoke without universal applause. The ears and the eyes gave him up the hearts and the understanding of the audience.”

, of another family, a German divine and poet, doctor and professor of divinity at the university of Kiel, was born in 1723, at Jostadt, near Aunaberg. He was educated at Leipsic, where he made great proficiency in learning, but was soon under the necessity of employing his talents to defray the expences of the university, which he did partly in teaching, and partly in translating for the booksellers. He soon, however, acquired great reputation, and in 1750 was invited to Copenhagen, where he became court-chaplain. In 1765 he was appointed professor of divinity in the university of Copenhagen, and in 1773 was appointed to the same office in the university of Kiel, where he died June 12, 1738. He ranks as an orator, historian, poet, and translator, but his countrymen distinguish him principally as an historian, and a poet. His translation of, and additions to Bossuet’s “Introduction to Universal History,” bespeak the highest talents, and his translation of the “Psalms” is said to breathe the true spirit of Oriental poetry. His two lyric odes of “David” and “Luther” are excellent; and, though inferior to Klopstock and Ramler in spirit, he far surpasses them in versification and ease. His principal works are: 1. “A Translation of the Sermons of St. Chrysostom, with an Introduction and Remarks,” ten parts, Leipsic, 1748 51. 2. Bossuet’s Introduction, with additions, ibid. 1748 72. 3. Poetical Translation of the “Psalms,” in four parts, ibid. 1762 64. 4. “Gospel Imitation of the Psalms of David, and other holy songs,” Copenhagen, 1769. 5. “Luther,” an ode, 1771. 6. “Melancthon,” an ode. He was also concerned with Klopstock in publishing the “Northern Inspector,” one of the best periodical publications in Germany.

, bishop of Bath and Wells, was born of an ancient family at Dunkeld, in Scotland, in 1593, and was educated at Westminster school, whence in 1613 he was elected to Trinity college, Cambridge, where he took his degrees in arts, and was chosen Greek professor, and university orator. In 1632 he was made treasurer of the cathedral of Wells, and was also canon residentiary, prebendary of Taunton, and had a living in Somersetshire. In 1637 he was admitted to the degree of D. D. and, as reported, was made dean of St. Burian, in Cornwall, but this seems doubtful. In the beginning of the rebellion, Dr. Crighton’s loyalty endangered his person and property, and to save the former he joined the king’s troops at Oxford. But from this place he was obliged afterwards to escape into Cornwall, in the dress of a day-labourer, and contrived to go to Charles II. abroad, who employed him as his chaplain, and bestowed on him the deanery of Wells, of which he took possession at the restoration. In 1670 he was promoted to the bishopric of Bath and Wells, which he held until his death Nov. 21, 1672. He was accounted a man of much learning, and in the discharge of his duty as a preacher, reproved the vices of the court with great boldness and plainness. His only publication was a translation from Greek into Latin, of Sylvester Syguropolus’s history of the council of Florence, Hague, 1660, fol. which was animadverted upon by Leo Allatius, to whom the bishop wrote an answer. Wood says he has some sermons in print. His son, who was chanter of Wells, published a volume of Sermons in 1720.

, in Latin Crocus, one of the revivers of classical learning, was a native of London, educated at Eton, and admitted scholar of King’s college, Cambridge, April 4, 1506. During the time of his scholarship he went to Oxford, and was instructed in the Greek language by Grocyn. He then went to Paris and some other parts of Europe for further improvement, and continued abroad about twelve years, supported chiefly by the liberality of Warham, archbishop of Canterbury. During his residence there he received a very high honour, that of being chosen Greek professor at Leipsic, being the fiirt that ever taught Greek in that university. Camerarius was one of his pupils here. He resided at Leipsic from 1514 to 1517, and afterwards for some time at Louvain in the same capacity. But as now the study of the Greek language began to be encouraged in our own universities, and as they could ill spare a scholar of Croke’s accomplishments, he was invited home, and in 1519, by the interest of Fisher, bishop of Rochester, was chosen public orator, and lecturer or teacher of Greek in that university. Here, likewise, as well as at Leipsic, he was the first who publicly and by authority taught Greek, Erasmus, who preceded him, having only made some private attempts; yet, in some respect he may be said to have succeeded that eminent scholar, as in his oration in praise of Greek learning, he makes honourable mention of Erasmus, and speaks modestly of himself as unworthy to succeed him. Erasmus had so good an opinion of him, that knowing he was poor, he desired dean Colet to assist him. In 1524, having proceeded in divinity, he became doctor in that faculty, and Henry VIII. being informed of his abilities, employed him as tutor to his natural son, the duke of Richmond. This promotion led to higher; for, being introduced at court when the question respecting the king’s divorce was agitated, Dr. Croke was thought a proper person to be sent abroad, in order to influence the university of Padua to the king’s side; which he successfully accomplished, although the enemies of that divorce say, not in the most honourable manner. From Collier we learn that Croke owns, in a letter to his royal master, that he had paid various sums to at least five of the members of the universities of Padua and Bologna, in order to keep them steady to the cause. But Burnet appears to explain this matter more to Croke’s honour.

, whose German name was Speishammer, an eminent historian, was born in 1473, at Sweinfurt, in Franconia, and became distinguished as a philosopher, historian, orator, poet, and physician, although his historical works only have survived. He was educated at Vienna, where his studies were confined to medicine and poetry, and soon became in high favour with the emperor Maximilian I. who made him his librarian, and afterwards employed him in various important negociations in Hungary, Bohemia, and Poland, and for many years admitted him to his presence as a confidential adviser, and placed him at the head of the senate of Vienna. When Cuspinian meditated his historical writings, the emperor ordered the libraries and archives to be thrown open to him. He died in 1529. His biographer, Gerbelius, describes him as a man of elegant person, address, and manners; and his works attest his learning and diligence in historical research. In this branch he wrote: 1. “De Cicsaribus et Imperatoribus Romanorum,” 1519, fol.; reprinted at Strasburgh, 1540; Basil, by Oporinus, 1561, and Francfort, 1601. 2. “Austria, sive Commentarius de rebus Austrice Marchionum, Ducum, &c.” Basil, 1553, fol. Franc fort, 1601. 3. “Commonefactio ad Leonem X. papam, ad Carolum V. imperatorem, &c. de Constantinopoli capta a Turcis, &c.” Leipsic, 1596, 4to. 4. “Commentarius in Sexti Rufi libellum de regia, consulari, imperialique dignitate, &c.” Basil, 1553, fol. with his life by Gerbelius, reprinted at Francfort, 1601, fol. 5. “De origine Turcorum,” Antwerp, 1541, 8vo. 6. “Panegyric! variorum Auctorum,” Vienna, 1513.

, originally of Thessaly, the disciple of Demosthenes and minister of Pyrrhus, equally celebrated as a philosopher and as an orator, flourished in the 125th olympiad, about 280 B. C. Pyrrhus said of him, “that he had taken more towns by his eloquence, than he had by his arms.” This prince sent him to Rome to solicit a peace, which was nearly granted him, when Appius Claudius and Fabricius, who were not to moved by the flowers of rhetoric, influenced the senate to adopt other measures. Cyneas, being returned to the camp of Pyrrhus, described Rome to him as a temple, the senate as an assembly of kings, and the Roman people as a hydra, which recruited its vigour as often as it was defeated. Pliny cites the memory of Cyneas as a prodigy, at least in remembering persons; for the day after his arrival at Rome, he saluted all the senators and knights by their several names. He abridged the book of Ericas the tactician, on the defence of places, which Casaubon published with a Latin version, in the Paris edition of Polybius, 1609, folio, and M. de Beausobre translated it into French, with comments, 1757, 4to.

, a learned French physician and indefatigable botanist, was born at Caen in 1513, studied medicine and botany at Montpelier, xvas admitted doctor in medicine in 1547, and died at Lyons, where he had long practised physic, in 1538. He published several elaborate translations, particularly of the fifteen books of Athenseus into Latin, in 1552, in 2 vols. fol. illustrated with notes and figures; and some of the works of Galen and Paul Egineta into French. In 1556 he published a translation of “Ccelius Aurelianus de Morbis acutis” and in 1569, “Chirurgie Franchise, avec plusieurs figures d'instrumens,” 8vo, which has been several times reprinted. He principally followed the practice of Paree, from whose work he borrowed the figures of the instruments; but he has added a translation into French of the seventh book ol' Paree, with annotations, and some curious cases occurring in his own practice. He was also the editor of an edition of Pliny with notes, published in 1537. His first work, according to Ilaller, was an 8vo edition of Iluellius’s Commentary on Dioscorides, which appeared at Lyons in 1552, enriched by Dalechamp with thirty small figures of plants, at that time but little known. But his principal performance in this branch was an universal history of plants, in Latin, with above two thousand five hundred wooden cuts, besides repetitions, published after his death in two folio volumes. The publisher, William Uouille, seems to take upon himself the chief credit of collecting and arranging the materials of this great work, though he allows that Dalechamp laid its first foundations. Haller says the latter was engaged in it for thirty years; his aim being to collect together all the botanical knowledge of his predecessors, and enrich it with his own discoveries. He employed John Bauhin, then a young man, and resident at Lyons, to assist him; but Bauhin being obliged on account of his religion to leave France for Switzerland, like many other good and great men of that and the following century, the work in question was undertaken by Des Moulins, and soon afterwards Dalechamp died. It is often quoted by the title of“Historia Lugdunensis,” and hence the merits of its original projector are overlooked, as well as the faults arising from its mode of compilation, which are in many instances so great as to render it useless. A French translation was published in 1615, and again in 1653. Besides these Dalechamp published, 1. “Caelius Aurelianus de morbis chronicis,” Lond. 1579, 8vo; and 2. An edition of the works of the two Senecas, the orator and the philosopher, with notes and various readings, Geneva, 1628, 2 vols. fol.

, an eminent Scotch lawyer and antiquary, and brother to the preceding, was born in Edinburgh on the 28th of October 1726, and was educated at Eton school, where he was distinguished no less for his acquisitions in literature-than for the regularity of his manners. From Eton he was removed, to complete his studies at Utrecht, where he remained till 1746. In 1748 he was called to the Scotch bar, where, notwithstanding the elegant propriety of the cases which he drew, his success did not answer the expectations which had been formed of him. This was not owing either to wajjt of science or to want of industry, but to certain peculiarities, which, if not inherent in his nature, were the result of early and deep-rooted habits. He possessed on all occasions a sovereign contempt, not only for verbal antithesis, but for well-rounded periods, and every thing which had the semblance of declamation; and indeed he was wholly unfitted, by an ill-toned voice, and ungraceful elocution, for shining as an orator. It is not surprizing, therefore, that his pleadings, which were never addressed to the passions, did not rival those of some of his opponents, who, possessed of great rhetorical powers, did not, like him, employ strokes of irony too fine to be perceived by the bulk of any audience, but expressed themselves in full, clear, and harmonious periods. Even his memorials, though classically written, and often replete with valuable matter, did not on every occasion please the court; for they were always brief, and sometimes, it was said, indicated more attention to the minutiye of forms than to the merits of the cause. Yet on points which touched his own feelings, or the interests of truth and virtue, his language was animated, his arguments forcible, and his scrupulous regard to form thrown aside. He was on all occasions incapable of misleading the judge by a false statement of facts, or his clients, by holding out to them fallacious grounds of hope. The character indeed which he had obtained for knowledge and integrity in the Scotch law, soon raised him to an eminence in his profession. Accordingly, in March 1766, he was appointed one of the judges of the court of session with the wannest approbation of his countrymen; and in May 1776 he succeeded to the place of a lord commissioner of the justiciary on the resignation of lord Coalston, his wife’s father. Upon taking his seat on the bench he assumed the title of lord Hailes, in compliance with the usage established in the court of session: this is the name by which he is generally known among the learned of Europe.

, an Athenian, who from a mariner became an orator, was taken prisoner at the battle of Cheronea gained by Philip of Macedon. By his eloquence he acquired a great ascendancy over the mind of that prince. One day, Philip making his appearance before the prisoners with all the ornaments of royalty, and cruelly insulting their misery “I am astonished,” said Demades, “that, fortune having assigned you the part of Agamemnon, you can amuse yourself in playing that of Thersites.” Demades was no less interested than eloquent. Antipater, his friend as well as that of Phocion, complained that he could never make the latter accept of any presents, while he could not bestow on the other enough to satisfy his covetousness. Demades was put to death, under suspicion of treason, in the year 332 before Christ. Nothing of his has come down to us, except the “Oratio de Duodecennali,” Greek and Latin, Hanov. 1619, 8vo, and in the “Rhetorum collectio,” Venice, 1513, 3 torn, folio.

, one of the greatest orators of antiquity, was born at Athens, in the second year of the 101st olympiad; or about 370 years before Christ. He was first placed under Plato and Euclid of Megara to study philosophy; but, observing with what applause Callistratus pleaded before the people, he applied to the study of oratory, under Isocrates and Isa3us. He was left fatherless when very young, and much neglected and defrauded by his guardians; on which account he pleaded against them at seventeen years of age, and with so much success, that they were condemned to pay him 30 talents; but, it is said, he forgave them. This was the first time that he distinguished himself by his eloquence, which at length he improved to such perfection, that Philip said “it was of more weight against him, than all the fleets and armies of the Athenians” and that “he had no enemy but Demosthenes” and Demetrius Phalereus and Eratosthenes said, “he actually appeared like one inspired.” He could present an object in any light he pleased, and give it whatever colouring best answered his purpose; and where he found it difficult to convince the judgment, he knew how to seduce the imagination. He was not perhaps so universal an orator as Cicero, not so powerful in panegyric, nor had he his turn for raillery; and Longinus says, whenever he attempted to jest, the laugh was sure to turn upon himself. But then he had a force of oratory, which, as Longinus observes, bore down, like a torrent, all before it. He opposed Philip of Macedon with his full strength, and Alexander after him. Alexander requested of the Athenians to have Demosthenes given up to him, but this was refused; yet when Antipater his successor made the same request afterwards, after his victory, these same Athenians, as the price of their pardon, were obliged to sacrifice Demosthenes and the orators of the same party. On the motion of Demades, a decree having passed condemning them to death, Demosthenes took sanctuary in the temple of Neptune at Calauria, but apprehending that attempts would be made to seize him, he provided himself with poison; and when taken by an emissary of Antipater, he retired to the interior part of the temple, and swallowed the dose. Immediately turning to Archias, the messenger of Antipater, who had been a player, he said, “Now you may perform the part of Creon as soon as you please, and cast out this carcase unburied.” Then turning to the altar, he exclaimed, “O gracious Neptune! I depart alive from thy temple without profaning it, which the Macedonians would have done by my murder.” Staggering as he attempted to retire, he fell by the altar, and expired at the age of fifty-nine, in the year B. C. 322. The Athenians not long after, erected his statue in brass, and decreed that the eldest of his family should be maintained at the public expence.

Although the regard that has been paid to the memory of Demosthenes has chiefly been on account of his eloquence, he was likewise a very able statesman, and a patriot; and, from the accounts we have of the embassies and expeditions, the treaties and alliances, and other various negotiations in which he was employed, together with the zeal and integrity with which he acted in them, we may conclude that he excelled as much in those capacities, as in that of an orator; though it must be confessed that his eloquence was the foundation of his advancement in other respects. But though he arrived to such perfection in this arc, he set out under great disadvantages; having an impediment in his speech, which for a long time would not suffer him to pronounce the letter R. He had likewise a weak voice, a short breath, and a very uncouth and ungracious manner, yet by dint of resolution and infinite pains, he overcame all these defects. He accustomed himself to climb up steep and craggy places to facilitate his breathing, and strengthen his voice; he declaimed with pebbles in his mouth, to remedy the imperfection in his speech; he placed a looking-glass before him, to correct the awkwardness of his gesture; and he learned of the best players the proper graces of action and pronunciation, which he thought of so much consequence, that he made the whole art of oratory in a manner to consist of them. But whatever stress he laid upon tt;e exterior part of speaking, he was also very careiul about the matter and the style, the latter of which he formed upon the model of Thucydides, whose history, for that purpose, he transcribed eight several times. He was so intent upon his study, that he would often retire into a cave of the earth, and shave half his head, so that he could not with decency appear abroad till his hair was grown again. He also accustomed himself to harangue at the seashore, where the agitation of the waves formed to him an idea of the commotions in a popular assembly, and served to prepare and fortify him against them. From this strict discipline, which he imposed upon himself, he became an instance how far parts and application may go towards perfection in any profession, notwithstanding the strongest natural impediments.

In his Olynthiacs and Philippics, which are his capital orations, he had a fine field for the display of his talents, the object he had in view being to excite the indignation of his countrymen against Philip, and to guard them against the insidious measures by which that crafty prince endeavoured to lull them into security. In the prosecution of this, he adopts every proper method for animating a people once renowned for justice, humanity, and valour, but in many instances now become corrupt and degenerate. He boldly taxes them with their venality, indolence, and indifference to the public cause; whilst with consummate art, he calls to their remembrance the glory of their ancestors, and leads them to consider that they were still a flourishing and powerful people, the natural protectors of the liberty of Greece, and that they only wanted the inclination to exert themselves, in order to make Philip tremble. With his contemporary orators, who were in the interest of Philip, or who persuaded the people to peace, he keeps no measures, but reproaches them as the betrayers of their country. Phocion was of this number; he on all occasions opposed the violence of the people; and when Demosthenes once told him that the Athenians would some day murder him in a mad fit, he answered, “And you too, perhaps, in a sober fit.” These orations are strongly animated, and abounding with the impetuosity and fire of public spirit. The figures which he uses rise naturally from the subject, and are employed sparingly, for splendour and ornament do not distinguish the compositions of Demosthenes. His character, as an orator, depends upou an energy of thought peculiar to himself, which elevates him above all others. Things, and not words, appear to be the objects of his attention. He has no parade and ostentation; no methods of insinuation; no laboured introductions; but like a man fully possessed by his subject, after preparing his audience by a sentence or two for hearing plain truths, he enters directly on business, warming the mind, and impelling to action.

Learning was long hereditary in this family. Sir Dudley had a brother, Leonard, and a son Dudley, who were both learned men and authors. His brother Leonard, born in 1588, was educated in University-college, Oxford, took the degree of B. A. in 1606, removed to London and then travelling beyond sea, studied in foreign universities: i'rcm whence returning a good scholar, and an accomplished person, he was created M. A. in 1626. His commendatory verses to Shakspeare are prefixed to that poet’s works. He also translated from Spanish into English “Gerardo the unfortunate Spaniard, 1622,” 4to, written by Goncalo de Cespades and from Latin into English verse, “Clauclian’s Rape of Proserpine, 1617,” 4to. He died April 7, 1635, being accounted a good poet and orator; and a great master of the English, French, and Spanish languages.

, an orator of Greece, the son of Sostratus, and a disciple of Thcophrastus, was a native of Attica, or of Corinth, and earned a great deal of money by composing harangues, at a time when the city of Athens was without orators. Being accused of receiving bribes from the enemies of the republic, he took to flight, and did not return till fifteen years afterwards, about the year 340 before Christ. Of 64 harangues which, according to Plutarch, he composed, and which Photins says he read, only three have come down to us, in the collection of Stephens, 1575, folio, or in that of Venice, 1513, 3 vols. folio. His oration against Demosthenes is the most remarkable of these, and abounds in personal invective of the grossest kind. Dionysias cf Halicarnassus used to call him Demosthenes the savage, meaning probably that he had some of his eloquence deformed bv his own malice and temper.

, the son of Pasicrates, was born at Prusa in Bithynia. We have just seen that Dio Cassius had the name of Cocceius or Cocceianus, and according to Mr. Wakefield, Dio Chrysostom had the same name' from his patron Cocceius; but as an entire century intervened between these two Dio’s, it is impossible that Cassius could have derived that name from the same cause. It is more certain, however, that the subject of the present article was called Chrysostom, or golden mouthed, from the elegance and purity of his compositions. This name has occasioned a frequent confusion of our Dio Chrysostom with John Chrysostom, the Christian preacher, so denominated for the same solid and splendid excellencies of his style. Dio Chrysostom, under Nero and Vespasian, maintained the profession of a sophist: and frequently inveighed, in a declamatory and luxuriant style, against the most illustrious poets and philosophers of antiquity; which obliged him to leave Rome, and withdraw to Egypt. He then assumed the character of a stoic philosopher; embellishing, however, his philosophical discourses that treated of moral topics, with the graces of eloquence. As his character corresponded to his principles of virtue, he was a bold censor of vice, and spared no individual on account of his rank. By his freedom of speech he offended Domitian, and being obliged to become a voluntary exile irr Thrace, he lived in great poverty, and supported himself by private labour. After the death of this emperor, he returned to Rome, and for some time remained concealed; but when he found the soldiers inclined to sedition, he brought to their recollection Dio the orator and philosopher, by haranguing them in a strain of manly eloquence, which soon subdued the tumult. He was admitted into the confidence of Nerva and Trajan, and distinguished by the former with tokens of favour. He lived to old acre, but the time of his death cannot be ascertained. His “Orations” are still extant, from which we may infer that he was a man of sound judgment and lively fancy, and that he blended in his style the qualities of animation and sweetness. The first edition of his works was published at Milan, 1476, 4to. The principal subsequent editions are, Venice, 15.51, 8vo; Paris, 1604, fol. and Paris, 1533, 4to, In 1800 the late Rev. Gilbert Wakefield published “Select Essays of Dio Chrysostom, translated into English, from the Greek, with notes critical and illustrative,” 8vo, a work, however,- rather calculated for political allusion, to which the translator was unhappily addicted, than for classical illustration.

Besides the Roman Antiquities, there are other writings of his extant, critical and rhetorical. His most admired piece in this way is “De structura Orationis,” first printed by Aldus at Venice in 1508, which has undergone several impressions since, with a Latin version joined to it; the last and best by Upton, printed at London in 1702. Several other compositions of the same kind, as his “Vita Isa^i et Dinarchi” “Judicium de Lysia” “Homeri vita;” “De Priscis Scriptoribus” “De antiquis Oratoribus,” of which Rowe Mores published an edition in 1749, reprinted in 1781, after his death, with additional notes taken from his copy of Hudson’s edition of Dionysius. All these shew Dionysius to have been a man of taste in the belles lettres, and of great critical exactness; and nothing can more clearly convince us of the vast reputation and high authority he possessed at Rome among the learned, than Pompey’s singling him out to give a judgment of the first Greek historians, and especially of Herodotus and Xenophon. There is extant a letter of his upon this subject, written to Pompey, at Pompey’s own request; and if there be any thing exceptionable in that letter, or in the other critical and rhetorical pieces of Dionysius, it is, that he was too rigorous in his criticisms, and contended too obstinately for perfection in an historian or orator. His finding fault with Plato upon his rigid principles, was one of the occasions of the letter which Pompey wrote to him: and we see by his answer^ that though, to gratify Pompey, he professes himself an admirer of Plato, he does not forbear to prefer Demosthenes to him; protesting, that it was only to give the whole advantage to the latter, that he exercised his censure against the former. Nevertheless it appears, that at another season he spared Demosthenes no more than the rest; so prone was his inclination to find fault, merely because writers did not, in their works, come up to that ideal perfection which he had conceived in his mind. The best edition of all Dionysius’s works is that by Hudson, at Oxford, 1704, in 2 vols. fol. His Roman History was translated into English by Edward Spelman, esq. 1757, 4 vols. 4to, with considerable fidelity and elegance, and illustrated with some dissertations, by which it appears that Mr. Spelman had devoted much time and study to his favourite author, as well tis to his subject; but he has likewise bestowed very unnecessary pains in exhibiting the defects of the French translators.

, a most laborious Italian writer, was born at Venice in 1508. His family was one of the most ancient in the republic, but reduced in circumstances. Lewis remained the whole of his life in his native city, occupied in his numerous literary undertakings, which procured him some personal esteem, but little reputation or wealth. Perhaps his best employment was that of cor-, rector of the press to the celebrated printer Gabriel Giolito, whose editions are so much admired for the beauties of type and paper, and yet with the advantage of Dolce’s attention, are not so correct as could be wished. As an original author, Dolce embraced the whole circle of polite literature and science, being a grammarian, rhetorician, orator, historian, philosopher, editor, translator, and commentator; and as a poet, he wrote tragedies, comedies, epics, lyrics, and satires. All that can be called events in his life, were some literary squabbles, particularly with Ruscelli, who was likewise a corrector of Giolito’s press. He died of a dropsical complaint in 1569, according to Apostolo Zeno, and, according to Tiraboschi, in 1566. Baillet, unlike most critics, says he was one of the best writers of his age. His style is flowing, pure, and elegant; but he was forced by hunger to spin out his works, and to neglect that frequent revisal which is so necessary to the finishing of a piece. Of his numerous works, a list of which may be seen in Niceron, or Moreri, the following are in some reputation: 1. “Dialogo della pittura, intitolato I'Aretino,” Venice, 1557, 8vo. This work was reprinted, with the French on the opposite page, at Florence, 1735. 2. “Cinque priini canti del Sacripante,” Vinegia^ 1535, 8vo. 3. “Primaleone,” 1562, 4to. 4. “Achilles; 1 * and” Jineas,“1570, 4to. 5.” La prima imprese del conte Orlando," 1572, 4to. 6. Poems in different collections, among others in that of Berni. And the Lives of Charles V. and Ferdinand the First.

, a voluminous French writer, who was burnt for his religious opinions at Paris, was born at Orleans about 1509, of a good family. Some have reported that he was the natural son of Francis L but this does not agree with the age of that monarch, who was born in 1494. Dolet began his studies at Orleans, and was sent to continue them at Paris when twelve years old. He applied with particular diligence to the belles lettres, and to rhetoric under Nicholas Berauld. His taste for these studies induced him to go to Padua, where he remained for three years, and made great progress under the instructions of Simon de Villa Nova, with whom he contracted an intimate friendship, and not only dedicated some of his poetical pieces to him, but on his death in 1530, composed some pieces to his memory, and wrote his epitaph. After the death of this friend, he intended to have returned to France, but John de Langeac, the Venetian ambassador, engaged him as his secretary. During his residence at Venice, he received some instructions from Baptiste F,griatio, who commented on Lucretius and Cicero’s Offices, and he became enamoured of a young lady whose charms and death he has celebrated in his Latin poems. On his return to France with the ambassador, he pursued his study of Cicero, who became his favourite author; and he began to make collections for his commentaries on the Latin language. His friends having about this time advised him to study law, as a profession, he went to Toulouse, and divided his time between law and the belles lettres. Toulouse was then famous for law studies, and as it was frequented by students of all nations, each had its little society, and its orator or president. The French scholars chose Doiet into this office, and he, with the rashness which adhered to him all his life, commenced hy a harangue in which he praised the French at the expence of the Toulousians, whom he accused of ignorance and barbarism, because the parliament of Toulouse wished to prohibit these societies. This was answered by Peter Pinache, to whom JJolet replied with such aggravated contempt for the Toulousians, that in 1533 he was imprisoned for a month, and then banished from the city. Some think he harboured Lutheran opinions, which was the cause of his imprisonment and banishment, but there is not much in his writings to justify this supposition, except his occasional sneers at ecclesiastics. As soon, however, as he reached Lyons, he took his revenge by publishing his harangues against the Toulousians, with some satirical verses on those whom he considered as the most active promoters of his disgrace; and that he might have something to plead against the consequences of such publications, he pretended that they had been stolen from him and given to the press without his knowledge. The verses were, however, inserted in the collection of his Latin poems printed in 1538.

, a physician, orator, and poet, born at Zigenrick in Voiglitland, died in 1631, in an advanced age, counsellor and physician to the princes of Brieg and Lignitz. He is the author of several works, which have been called learned fooleries. The most known of them are, 1. “Amplritheatrum sapientiae Socraticie,” Hanover, 1619, 2 vols. fol. 2. “Homo diabolus hocest: Auctorum veterum et recentiorum de calumnias natura et remediis, sua lingua editorum, sylloge” Frankfort, 1618, 4to 3. “De increment dominationis Turcicae,” &c.

, an eminent prelate, was born Feb. 6, 1533, at Buda, and educated by his uncle, who was bishop of Vaccia, or Veitzen, and out of respect to him he took the name of Shardellet. In 1560 the emperor Ferdinand II. admitted Dudith into his council, and appointed him bishop of Tina. He was sent soon after to the council of Trent, in the name of the emperor, and all the Hungarian clergy; and there made a very eloquent speech, April 9, 1568, which was heard with great pleasure. But this was not the case with another speech which he delivered in that place on July 6; for, though he shewed great zeal for the pope, and exclaimed strongly against Luther, yet he expressed himself so freely, both there and in his common conversation, on the necessity of episcopal residence, and in favour of marriage among the clergy, and administering the cup in the sacrament, that the legates, apprehensive of his drawing many prelates to his opinion, wrote to the pope, informing him, that Dudith was a dangerous man, and that it was necessary he should leave Trent. Upon tnis the pope solicited the emperor to recall him, which he accordingly did: but Ferdinand, far from blaming his conduct, rewarded it with the bishopric of Chonat, and soon after gave him that of five churches. This prince dying 1564, Dudith was sent by Maximilian II. into Poland, whither he nad been sent before by Ferdinand, and privately married lleyna Strazzi, maid of honour to the queen, resigning his bishopric. Rome cited him, excommunicated him, and even condemned him to the flames as an heretic, yet he despised her threats, and remained in security. After the death of his first wife, by whomhehadthreechildren, he married in 1579, a lady descended from an illustrious Polish family, widow of count John Zarnow, and sister of the famous Sborowits, by whom also he had children. Dudith, at length, openly professed the reformed religion, and even became a Socinian, according to most authors, particularly of the modern school^ who seem proud of their convert; but the fact is denied by the writer of his life, who, on the contrary, asserts, he disputed strongly against Socinus. He then settled at Breslaw in Silesia, where he died February 23, 1589, aged 56. Dudith, according to the representations both of his friends and enemies, was a handsome well-made man, of a peaceable disposition; civil, affable, regular in his conduct, very charitable to the poor, and benevolent towards all mankind. He had a taste for the classics, and so great a veneration for Cicero, that he wrote all that orator’s works, three times over, with his own hand. He likewise understood several languages, and was well acquainted with history, philosophy, mathematics, physic, law, and divinity. He left a great number of works: the principal are, “Dissertationes de Cometis,” Utrecht, 1665, 4to; two discourses, delivered at the council of Trent; an apology for the emperor Maximilian II. &c. published with other tracts, and his Life by Reuter, 1610, 4to. He published also, the Life of cardinal Pole, translated from the Italian of Beccatelli. Several of Dudith’s letters and poems occur in the collections.

, a writer of the ninth century, better known by his works than his personal history, is supposed to have been a native of Ireland, who emigrated to France, and there probably died. Cave and Dupin call him deacon, but Dungal himself assumes no other title than that of subject to the French kings, and their orator. In his youth he studied sacred and profane literature with success, and taught the former, and had many scholars, but at last determined to retire from the world. The influence which Valclon or Valton, the abbot of St. Denis near Paris, had over him, with some other circumstances, afford reason to think that if he was not a monk of that abbey, he had retired somewhere in its neighbourhood, or perhaps resided in the house itself. During this seclusion he did not forsake his studies, but cultivated the knowledge of philosophy, and particularly of astronomy, which was much the taste of that age. The fame he acquired as an astronomer induced Charlemagne to consult him in the year 811, on the subject of two eclipses of the sun, which took place the year before, and Dungal answered his queries in a long letter which is printed in D'Acheri’s Spicilegium, vol. III. of the folio, and vol. X. of the 4to edition, with the opinion of Ismael Bouillaud upon it. Sixteen years after, in the year 827, Dungal took up his pen in defence of images against Claude, bishop of Turin, and composed a treatise which had merit enough to be printed, first separately, in 1608, 8vo, and was afterwards inserted in the “Bibliotheca Patrum.” It would appear also that he wrote some poetical pieces, one of which is in a collection published in 1729 by Martene and Durand. The time of his death is unknown, but it is supposed he was living in the year 834.

Few men, in a career requiring the gifts of voice, person, and manner, had ever more difficulties to struggle with than the late lord Ashburton. He was a thick, short, compact man, with a sallow countenance, turned-up nose, a constant shake of the head, with a hectic cough which so frequently interrupted the stream of his eloquence, that to any other man this single defect would be a material impediment in his profession; and yet, with all these personal drawbacks, he no sooner opened a cause which required any exertion of talent, than his mind, like the sun, broke forth in the full meridian of its brightness. His elocution was at once fluent, elegant, and substantial, and partook more of the knowledge of constitutional law than that derived from the old books and reporters; not that he wasdeficient in all the depths of his profession, when an absolute necessity called him out (his praise being that of the best common lawyer as well as the best orator of his time); but his general eloquence partook more of the spirit than the letter of laws. His diction was of the purest and most. classical kind not borrowed from any living model of his time, either in the senate or at the bar it was his own particular formation and if it had any shade, it was perhaps its not being familiar enough, at times, to the common ear: he was, however, master of various kind of styles, and possessed abundance of wit and humour, which often not only '; set the court in a roar," but drew smiles from the gravity of the bench. His more finished speeches in the house of commons, and as a pleader before the bar of the house of lords, were many of them fine models of eloquence: he possessed the copia verbprum so fully that he seldom wanted a word; and when he did, he had great Jinesse in concealing it from his auditory, by repeating some parts of his last sentences by way of illustration: nobody had this management better, as by it he recovered the proper arrangement of his ideas, without any visible interruption in his discourse.

, a learned divine, and professor in the university of Ingoldstadt, was born in Suabia, in 1483. He is memorable for promoting the reformation by the weakness of the opposition he gave to Luther, Melancthon, Carolostadius, and other leading protestants in> Germany; and for his disputes and writings against them in defence of his own communion, all which terminated in, his defeat, and in exciting a spirit of inquiry and discussion which eminently advanced the reformation. In 1518 he disputed with Luther at Leipsic, about the supremacy of the pope, penance, purgatory, and indulgences, before George duke of Saxony; at which time even the Lutherans were ready to grant that he acquitted himself as well as a man could do in the support of such a cause, and were not a little pleased that they were able to answer itg greatest supporter. He disputed the year after, against Carolostadius, on the subject of free will. He appeared at the diet of Augsburg in 1538, where he argued against the protestant confession; and in 1541 he disputed for three days with Melancthon and other divines at Worms, concerning the continuance of original sin after baptism. This conference, by the emperor’s command, was adjourned to Ratisbon; where he dissented again from Pfiug and Cropper, with reference to the articles of union. He was the most conspicuous orator in all the public disputes which the Roman catholics had with the Lutherans and Zwinglians. He wrote a great many polemical tracts; and, among the rest, a Manual of Controversies, in which he discourses upon most of the heads contested between the papists and protestants. This book was printed at Ingoldstadt, in 1535. He wrote another tract against the articles proposed at the conference at Ratisbon, printed at Paris in 1543. He composed likewise two discourses upon the sacrifice of the mass; some other controversial pieces an exposition upon the prophet Haggai; and several homilies. Upon the whole, he was a person of uncommon parts, uncommon learning, and uncommon zeal; and to his perseverance in the cause of popery, the reformers were greatly indebted. He died at Ingoldstadr, in 1543, aged sixty years.

Although modern wits have amused themselves with the flatteries too frequently offered to this great queen, on account of her literary productions, and although some of these productions enumerated by lord Orford, and hid able continuator Mr. Park, are rather valuable as curiosities, than as acquisitions to the literary history of her age, yet it cannot be refused that she was truly and substantially learned, having studied the best ancient as well as modern authors. The confinement and persecutions of her youth afforded scope for the acquisition of eminent intellectual attainments. That she was well skilled in the Greek, was manifest from her writing a comment on Plato, and translating into Latin a Dialogue of Xenophon, two orations of Isocrates, and a play of Euripides. Into English she translated Plutarch “de Curiositate.” Her versions from Latin authors were, Boethius’s- Consolation of Philosophy, Sallust’s Jugurthine War, and part of Horace’s Art of Poetry. With her general learning, Elizabeth united an uncommon readiness in speaking the Latin language, which she displayed in three orations; one delivered in the university of Cambridge, and two in Oxford. An extraqrdinary instance of her ability in this way, was exhibited in a rapid piece of eloquence with which she interrupted an insolent ambassador from Poland. “Having ended her oration, she, lion-like, rising,” says the historian, “daunted the malapert orator no less with her stately port and majestic departure, than with the tartness of her princely chekes (reproofs); and, turning to the train of her attendants, said, ‘God’s death! my Lords! I have been forced this day secure up my old Latin, that hath, long laid rusting’.” By her contemporaries, Elizabeth has been highly extolled for her poetry, butto this modern taste will demnrr, yet she had a capacity for Latin versification.

, a miscellaneous writer of some reputation in the last age, and well known to the scholars of that period, was the son of Mr. James Ellis, and was born in the parish of St. Clement Danes, March 22, 1698. His father was a man of an eccentric character, roving, and unsettled. At one time he was clerk to his uncle and guardian, serjeant Denn, recorder of Canterbury, and kept his chambers in Gray’s-inn, on a starving allowance, as Mr. Ellis used to declare, for board-wages. Leaving his penurious relation, who spent what his father left him in a litigious process, he obtained a place in the post-office at Deal in Kent, from whence he was advanced, to be searcher of the customs in the Downs, with a boat; but being imposed upon, as he thought, in some way by his patron, he quitted his employment and came to London. He was represented by his son as particularly skilful in the use of the sword, to which qualification he was indebted, through the means of a nobleman, for one of his places. He was also much famed for his agility, and could at one time jump the wall of Greenwich park, with the assistance of a staff. At the trial of Dr. Sacheverel he was employed to take down the evidence for the doctor’s use. His wife, Susannah Philpot, our author’s mother, was so strict a dissenter, that when Dr. Sacheverel presented her husband with his print, framed and glazed, she dashed it on the ground, and broke it to pieces, calling him at the same time a priest of Baal; and at a late period of our author’s life, it was remembered by him, that she caused him to undergo the discipline of the school, for only presuming to look at a top on a Sunday which had been given to him the day preceding. The qualifications which Mr. Ellis’s father possessed, it will be perceived, were not those which lead to riches; and indeed so narrow were his circumstances, that he was unable to give his son the advantages of a liberal education. He was first sent to a wretched day-school in Dogwell-court, White Fryars, with a brother and two sisters; and afterwards was removed to another, not much superior, in Wine-office-court, Fleet-street, where he learned the rudiments of grammar, more by his own application than by any assistance of his master. He used, however, to acknowledge the courtesy of the usher, who behaved well to him. While at this school he translated “Mars ton Moore; sive, de obsidione praelioque Eboracensi carmen. Lib. 6. 1650, 4to. Written by Payne Fisher;” which, as it has not been found among his papers, we suppose was afterwards destroyed. At what period, or in what capacity he was originally placed with Mr. John Taverner, an eminent scrivener in Threadneedlestreet, we have not learned; but in whatever manner the connexion began, he in due time became clerk or apprentice to him; and during his residence had an opportunity of improving himself in the Latin tongue, which he availed himself of with the utmost diligence. The son of his master, then at Merchant Taylors’ school, was assisted by his father in his daily school-exercises; which being conducted in the presence of the clerk, it was soon found that the advantage derived from the instructions, though missed by the person for whom it was intended, was not wholly lost. Mr. Ellis eagerly attended, and young Taverner being of an indolent disposition, frequently asked his assistance privately; which at length being discovered by the elder Taverner, was probably the means of his first introduction to the world, though it cannot be said much to his advantage, as old Taverner had the address to retain him in the capacity of his clerk during his life-time, and at his death incumbered him with his son as a partner, by whose imprudence Mr. Ellis was a considerable sufferer both in his peace of mind and his purse, and became involved in difficulties which hung over him a considerable number of years. His literary acquisitions soon, as it might be expected, introduced him to the acquaintance of those who had similar pursuits. In 1721, the rev. Mr. Fayting, afterwards of Merchant Taylors’ school, rector of St. Martin Outwich, and prebendary of Lincoln, being then about to go to Cambridge, solicited and obtained his correspondence, part of which was carried on in verse. With this gentleman, who died 22d Feb. 1789, in his eighty-sixth year, Mr. Ellis lived on terms of the most unreserved friendship, and on his death received a legacy of 100l. bequeathed to him by his will. At a period rather later, he became also known to the late Dr. King of Oxford. Young Taverner, who probably was not at first intended for a scrivener, was elected from Merchant Taylors’ school to St. John’s college, Oxford, and by his means Mr. Ellis was made acquainted with the tory orator. By Dr. King he was introduced to his pupil lord Orrery; and Mr. Ellis atone time spent fourteen days in their company at college, so much to the satisfaction of all parties, that neither the nobleman nor his tutor ever afterwards came to London without visiting, and inviting Mr. Ellis to visit them. In, the years 1742 and 1713, Dr. King published “Templum Libertatis,” in two books, which Mr. Ellis translated into verse with the entire approbation of the original author. This translation still remains in ms. Of his poetical friends, however, the late Moses Mendez, esq. appears to have been the most intimate with him. Several marks of that gentleman’s friendship are to be found scattered through his printed works; and about 1749 he addressed a beautiful epistle to him from Ham, never yet published. In 1744 Mr. Mendez went to Ireland, and on July 5 sent a poetical account of his journey to Mr. Ellis. This epistle was afterwards printed in 1767, in -a collection of poems, and in the same miscellany Mr. Ellis’s answer appeared. Soon after Mr. Mendez addressed a poetical epistle to his friend, Mr. S. Tucker, at Dulwich, printed in the sam collection.

, an eminent philosopher, poet, orator, historian, and physician, was of Agrigentum, in Sicily, and flourished about the eighty-fourth olympiad, or B. C. 44-4. He appears from his doctrine to have been of the Italic school; but under what master he studied philosophy is uncertain. After the death of his father Meto, who was a wealthy citizen of Agrigentum, he acquired great weight among his fellow-citizens, by espousing the popular party, and favouring democratic measures. He employed a large share of his paternal estate in giving dowries to young women, and marrying them to men of superior rank. His consequence in the state became at length so great, that he ventured to assume several of the distinctions of royalty, particularly a purple robe, a golden girdle, a Delphic crown, and a train of attendants; always retaining a grave and commanding aspect. He was a determined enemy to tyranny, and is said to have employed his influence in establishing and defending the rights of his countrymen.

The skill which Empedocles possessed in medicine and natural philosophy enabled him to perform many wonders, which he passed upon the superstitious and credulous multitude for miracles. He pretended to drive away noxious winds from his country, and hereby put a stop to epidemical diseases. He is said to have checked, by the power of music, the madness of a young man, who was threatening his enemy with instant death; to have cured Pantha, a woman of Agrigentum, whom all the physicians had declared incurable; to have restored a woman to life, who had lain breathless for thirty days; and to have done many other things equally astonishing, after the manner of Pythagoras: on account of which he was an object of universal admiration, so that when he came to the Olympic games, the eyes of all the people were fixed upon him. Besides medical skill, Empedocles possessed poetical talents. The fragments of his verses, which are dispersed through various ancient writers, have been in part collected by Henry Stephens, in the “Poesis philosophica,” 1574, 8vo. This circumstance affords some ground for the opinion of Fabricius, that Empedocles was the real author of that ancient fragment which bears the name of “The Golden Verses of Pythagoras.” He is said also to have been a dramatic poet; but Empedocles the tragedian was another person; Suidas, upon some unknown authority, calls him the grandson of the philosopher. Georgias Leontinus, a celebrated orator, was his pupil; whence it may seem reasonable to infer, that he was an eminent master of the art of eloquence. The particulars of his death are variously related. Some report, that during the night, after a sacred festival, he was conveyed away towards the heavens, amidst the splendour of celestial light; others that he threw himself into the burning crater of Mount Etna. Much reliance cannot be placed on either of these stories. There is more probability that towards the close of his life he went into Greece, and died there, at what time is uncertain. Aristotle says he died at sixty years of age. The substance of his philosophy, according to Brucker, is this: It is impossible to judge of truth by the senses without the assistance of reason; which is. led, by the intervention of the senses, to the contemplation of the real nature, and immutable essences, of things. The first principles of nature are of two kinds, active and passive the active is unity, or God the passive, matter. The active principle is a subtle, ethereal fire, intelligent and divine, which gives being to all things, and animates all things, and into which all things will be at last resolved. Many daemons, portions of the divine nature, wander through the region of the air, and administer human affairs. Man, and also all brute animals, are allied to the divinity; and it is therefore unlawful to kill or eat animals. The world is one whole, circumscribed by the revolution of the sun, and surrounded, not by a vacuum, but by a. mass of inactive matter. The first material principles of the four elements are similar atoms, indefinitely small, and of a round form. Matter, thus divided into corpuscles, possessed the primary qualities of friendship and discord, by means of which, upon the first agitation of the original chaotic mass, homogeneous parts were united, and heterogeneous separated, and the four elements composed, of which all bodies are generated. The motion of the corpuscles, which excites the qualities of friendship and discord, is produced by the energy of intellectual fire, or divine mind; all motion, and consequently all life and being, must therefore be ascribed to God. The first principles of the elements are eternal nothing can begin to exist, or be annihilated but all the varieties of nature are produced by combination or separation. In the formation of the world, ether was first secreted from chaos, then fire, then earth; by the agitation of which were produced water and air. The heavens are a solid body of air, crystallized by fire. The stars are bodies composed of fire, they are fixed in the crystal of heaven; but the planets wander freely beneath it. The sun is a fiery mass, larger than the moon, which is in the form of a hollow plate, and twice as far from the sun as from the earth. The soul of man consists of two parts, the sensitive, produced from the same principles with the elements; and the rational, which is a daemon sprung from the divine soul of the world, and sent down into the body as a punishment for its crimes in a former state, where it transmigrates till it is sufficiently purified to return to God.

, a Greek orator and historian, a native of Cuma or Cyme in Æolia, flourished about the year 352 B. C. He was a disciple of Socrates, at whose instigation, he wrote history; which he commenced after the fabulous periods, with the return of the Heraclidae into Peloponnesus, and brought down to the twentieth year of Philip of Macedon. This work, which was-divided into 30 books, was held in estimation by the ancients, and is frequently cited by Strabo and other writers; though the historian is charged with errors and misrepresentations, and plagiarisms. Besides the history, the loss of which is regretted, Ephorus wrote several other books on moral, geographical, and rhetorical subjects, none of which are extant but some “Fragmenta” are published with Scylax, Or. and Lat. Leyden, 1697, 4to.

In 1525 he published his “Diatribe de libero arbitrio,” already noticed, which Luther replied to, in a treatise entitled “De servo arbitrio.” In this he mixes compliment, praise, scorn, insult, ridicule, and invective, together; at which Erasmus was much provoked, and immediately wrote a reply, which was the first part of his “Hyperaspistes:” the second was published in 1527. The year after he published two treatises, in the way of dialogue, entitled “The pronunciation of the Greek and Latin languages,” and “The Ciceronianus.” In the former, which is one of the most learned of all his compositions, are contained very curious researches into the pronunciation of vowels and consonants; in the sec.ond, which is one of the most lively and ingenious, he rallies agreeably some Italian purists, who scrupled to make use of any word or phrase which was not to be found in Cicero: not that he condemned either Cicero or his manner of writing, but only the servility and pedantry of his imitators, which he thought, and very justly, deserving of ridicule. On the contrary, when Froben engaged him, the very same year, to revise a new edition of the Tusculan Questions, he prefixed to it an elegant preface, in which he highly extols Cicero, both for his style and moral sentiments, and almost makes a saint of him: and Julius Scaliger, who censured Erasmus for his treatment of the Ciceronians, declared afterwards, that he was willing to forgive him his blasphemies, and to be at peace with him thenceforward, for the sake of this preface; which he considered as a kind of penance, and of satisfaction made to the manes of the Roman orator.

, a celebrated orator of the fourth century, was a Greek by family, as his name imports, but was born at Autun, as he himself informs us in the fine panegyrie which he spoke at Treves in the year 309, in the presence of Constantine the Great. In the year 311 he again delivered an oration before that prince at Treves, as spokesman for the inhabitants of Autun, whom Constantine had honoured with a visit, and on whose city he had bestowed marks of liberality and favour. Eumenius long taught rhetoric in that city, and was highly esteemed by Constantine, as he had before been by Constantius Chlorus, the emperor’s father, who died in the year 306. Eumenius appeared to most advantage in the oration which he delivered before Rictiovarus, or Riccius Varus, the prefect of Lyons, in favour of the public schools for the young Gauls, of which he himself had the care. They had been destroyed by the incursions of some rebels, and Eumenius, in order to their re-establishment, offered the whole of his salary, which is said to have amounted to 600,000 sesterces, or more than 3000l. of our money; but this appears to have included his salary as imperial secretary, an office which he also held. All that remain of his works are printed in the “Panegyrici veteres.” His style indicates the declension of pure Latinity.

The occasion of his applying himself to dramatic poetry was the extreme danger his master Anaxagoras had incurred by his philosophy: who, under the accusation of despising the public gods, was banished from Athens by the fury of the mob, and narrowly escaped with his life. Euripides was then eighteen; but his works will evidently shew, that he did not afterwards lay aside the study of morality and physics. He wrote a great number of tragedies, which were highly esteemed both in his life-time and after his death: and Quintilian, among many others, doubted whether he was not the best of the tragic poets. “Sophocles and Euripides,” says he, “have far excelled Æschylus in tragedy. Many people question, which of these two poets in their different manner deserves the preference but, as thisbears no relation to what I am now writing upon, I shall leave it undetermined. However, there, is np one but must own, that Euripides will be of much more use to those who are intended to plead: for his diction, which is censured by such as think there is more sublimity in the grave, majestic, and sonorous style of Sophocles, comes nearer to that of an orator. He likewise abounds with moral reflections; and is almost equal to the sages, when he treats on the same subject with them. In his manner of reasoning and replying, he may be compared to the most renowned orators at the bar. He charms all, when he attempts to raise the passions; and, when he would raise pity, he is inimitable.” Quintilian has here specified three of the most prominent characteristics of Euripides, his disposition to philosophize, the rhetorical cast of his style, and the power of touching the passions, which, notwithstanding frequent insipidity, he sometimes exercises in a high degree. The philosophy of his master Anaxagoras may be often traced in his writings, as has been proved by Valckenaer in his learned diatribe on the fragments of Euripides, some chapters of which are devoted to the illustration of this subject.

As considerable light is thrown on the history and merits of Mr. Evelyn from the account given of his works, little apology need be made for the length of the article, taken principally from the Biographia Britannica. These were, 1. His treatise “Of Liberty and Servitude,” 1649, 12mo. This was a translation, and in all probability the first essay of our author’s pen. 2. “A Character of England, as it was lately presented in a letter to a nobleman of France, with reflections upon Callus Castratus,” 1651, 16to. The third edition of this book appeared in 1659; at present it is very scarce. 3. “The State of France,” London, 1652, 8vo. 4. “An Essay on the First Book of Titus Lucretius Carus, de renim natura, interpreted, and made into English verse, by J. Evelyn, esq.” London, 1656, 8vo. The frontispiece to this book was designed by his lady, Mary Evelyn. There is a copy of verses by F.dmun.l Waller, esq. of Beaconsfield, prefixed and directed to his worthy friend Mr. Evelyn, perhaps too extravagant. As there are many faults, however, in this work which do not belong to the author, we shall subjoin the transcript of a ms note in his own hand-writing in the copy at Wotton: “Never was book so abominably misused by printer; never copy so negligently surveied by one who undertooke to looke over the proofe-sheetes with all exactnesse and care, naqely Dr. Triplet, well knowne for his abiilitie, and who pretended, to oblige me in Hiv absence, and so readily offer'd himselfe. This good yet I received by it, that publishing it vaiiu-ly, its ill succese at the printer’s discouraged me with troubling the world with the rest.” 5. “The French Gardener, instructing how to cultivate all sorts of fruit-trees and herbs for the garden, together with directions to dry and conserve them in their natural,” &c. Lond. 1658, in 12mo, and several times after. In most of the editions is added, “The English Vineyard vindicated, by John Rose, gardener to his majesty king Charles II. with a' tract of the making and ordering of wines in France.” The third edition of this French Gardener, which came out in 1676, was illustrated with sculptures. 6. “The golden book of St. Oh ry sos torn, concerning the Education of Children.” Lond. 1659, 12mo, in the preface to which is a very interesting account of his son Richard, an amiable and promising child, who died in infancy, Jan. 27, 1657. This little narrative, as Mr. Evelyn’s work is scarce, may be seen in decade first of Barksdale’s Memorials, which, however, is almost as scarce. 7. “An Apology for the Royal Party, c.” 1659, 4to, mentioned above. 8. “The late News or Message from Brussels unmasked,” 1659, 4 to, also mentioned above. 9. A Panegyric at his, majesty king Charles II. his Coronation,' 1 Loncl. 1661, fol. 10. “Instructions concerning the erecting of a Library, written by Gabriel Naude”, published in English, with some improvements,“Lond. 1661, 8vo. ll.” Fumifugium or the inconveniences of the air and the smoke of London dissipated together with some remedies humbly proposed,“London, 1661, 4to, in five sheets, addressed to the king and parliament, and published by hisma jesty’s express command. Of this there was a late edition in 1772. 12.” Tyrannies or the Mode in a discourse of sumptuary laws“Lond. 1661, 8vo. 13.” Sculptnra; or the history a-id art of Chalcography and Engraving in Copper, with an ample enumeration of the most renowned masters and their works; to which is annexed, a new manner of engraving, or mezzo-tinto,. communicated by his highness prince Rupert to the author of this treatise,“Lond. 1662, 8vo. In the dedication to Mr. Robert Boyle, dated: at Sayes-court, April 5th, 1662, he observes, that he wrote this treatise at the reiterated instance of that gentleman. The first chapter treats of sculpture, howderived and distinguished, with the styles and instruments belonging to it. The second, of the original of sculpture in general. la this chapter our author observes, that letters, and consequently sculpture, were lon.g before the flood, Suidas ascribing both letters and all the rest of the sciences to Adam. After the flood, as he supposes, there were but few who make any considerable question, that it might not be propagated by Noah to his posterity, though some admit of none before Moses. The third chapter treats of the reputation and progress of sculpture among the Greeks and Romans down to the middle ages, with a discussion of some pretensions to the invention of copper cuts and their impressions. The fourth, of the invention and progress of chalcography in particular, together with an ample enumeration of the most renowned masters and their works. The fifth, of drawing and design previous to the art of chalcography, and of the use of pictures in order to theeducation of children. In this chapter, our author, in honour of the art upon which he writes, discourses thus:” It was in the former chapter that we made rehearsal of the most renowned gravers and their works, not that we had no more to add to that number, but because we would not mingle these illustrious names and qualities there, which we purposely reserved for the crown of this discourse. We did, therefore, forbear to mention what his highness prince Rupert’s own hands have contributed to the dignity of that art, performing things in graving, of which some enrich our collection, comparable to the greatest masters; such a spirit and address there appears in all that he touches, and especially in that of the mezzotinto, of which we shall speak hereafter more at large, having first enumerated those incomparable gravings of that his new and inimitable style, in both the great and little decollations of St. John the Baptist, the soldier holding a spear and leaning his hand on a shield, the two Mary Magdalens, the old man’s head, that of Titian, &c. after the same Titian, Georgion, and others. We have also seen a plate etched by the present French king, and other great persons; the right honourable the earl of Sandwich, sometimes, as we are told, diverting himself with the burine, and herein imitating those ancient and renowned heroes, whose names are loud in the trumpet of fame for their skill and particular affection to these arts. For such of old were Lucius Manilius, and Fabius, noble Romans, Pacuvius, the tragic poet, nephew to Ennius. Socrates, the wisest of men, and Plato himself, Metrodorus and Pyrrhus the philosopher, did both desigii and paint and so did Valentinian, Adrian, and Severus, emperors so as the great Paulus ^milius esteemed it of such high importance, that he would needs have his son to be instructed in it, as in one of the most worthy and excellent accomplishments belonging to a prince. For the art of graving, Quintilian likewise celebrates Euphranor, a polite and rarely endowed person; and Pliny, in that chapter where he treats of the same art, observes that there was never any one famous in it, but who was by birth or education a gentleman. Therefore he and Galen in their recension of the liberal arts, mention that of graving in particular, amongst the most permanent; and in the same catalogue, number it with rhetoric, geometry, logic, astronomy, yea, r grammar itself, because there is in these arts, say they, more of fancy and invention, than strength of hand, more of the spirit than of the body. Hence Aristotle informs us, that the Grecians did universally institute their children in the art of painting and drawing, for an oeconomique reason there signified, as well as to produce proportions in the mind. Varro makes it part of the ladies 1 education, that they might have the better skill in the works of embroidery, &c. and for this cause is his daughter Martia celebrated among those of her fair sex. We have already mentioned the learned Anna Schurman; but the princess Louisa has done wonders of this kind, and is famous throughout Europe for the many pieces which enrich our cabinets, examples sufficient to vindicate its dignity, and the value that has been set upon it, since both emperors, kings, and philosophers, the great and the wise, have not disdained to cultivate and cherish this honourable quality of old, so nobly reputed, that amongst the Greeks a slave might not be taught it. How passionately does Pereskius, that admirable and universal genius, deplore his want of dexterity in this art Baptista Alberti, Aldus Pomponius, Guaricus Durer, and Rubens, were politely learned and knowing men, and it is hardly to be imagined of how great use and conducible a competent address in this art of drawing and designing is to the several advantages which occur, and especially to the more noble mathematical sciences, as we have already instanced in the lunary works of Hevelius, and are no less obliged to celebrate some of ur own countrymen famous for their dexterity in this incomparable art. Such was that Blagrave, who himself cut those diagrams in his Mathematical Jewel; and such at present is that rare and early prodigy of universal science, Dr. Chr. Wren, our worthy and accomplished friend. For, if the study of eloquence and rhetoric were cultivated by the greatest geniuses and heroic persons which the world has produced, and that, by the suffrage of the most knowing, to be a perfect orator a man ought to be universally instructed, a quality so becoming and useful should never be neglected.“In the sixth chapter he discourses of the new way of engraving or mezzotinto, invented and communicated by prince Rupert and he therein observes,” that his highness did indulge him the liberty of publishing the whole manner and address of this new way of engraving; but when I had well considered it, says he (so much having been already expressed, which may suffice to give the hint to all ingenious persons how it is to be performed), I did not think it necessary that an art so curious, and as yet so little vulgar, and which indeed does not succeed where the workman is not an accomplished designer, and has a competent talent in painting likewise, was to be prostituted at so cheap a rate as the more naked describing of it here would too soon have exposed it to. Upon these considerations then, it is, that vvg leave it thus enigmatical; and yet that this may appear no disingenuous rhodomontade in me, or invidious excuse, I profess myself to be always most ready sub sigillo, and by his highness’s permission, to gratify any curious and worthy person with as full and perfect a demonstration of the entire art as my talent and address will reach to, if what I am now preparing to be reserved in the archives of the royal society concerning it be not sufficiently instructive.“There came, however, into the hands of the communicative and learned Richard Micldleton Massey, M. D. and F. 11. S. the original manuscript, written by Mr. Evelyn, and designed for the royal society, entitled” Prince Rupert’s new way of engraving, communicated by his highness to Mr. Evelyn;“in the margin of which is this note:” This I prepared to be registered in the royal society, but I have not yet given it in, so as it still continues a secret.“In this manuscript he first describes the two instruments employed in this new manner of engraving, viz. the hatcher and the style, and then proceeds to explain the method of using them. He concludes with the following words:” This invention, or new manner of chalcography, was the result of chance, and improved by a German soldier, who, espying some scrape on the barrel of his musket, and being of an ingenious spirit, refined upon it, till it produced the effects you have seen, and which indeed is, for the delicacy thereof, much superior to anyinvention extant of this art, for the imitation of those masterly drawings, and, as the Italians call it, that morhidezza expressed in the best of their designs. I have had the honour to be the first of the English to whom it has been yet communicated, and by a special indulgence of his highness, who with his own hands was pleased to direct me with permission to publish it to the world; but I have esteemed it a thing so curious, that I thought it would be to profane it, before I had first offered it to this illustrious society. There is another way of engraving, by rowelling a plate with an instrument made like that which our scriveners and clerks use to direct their rulers by on parchment, only the points are thicker set into the rowel. And when the plate is sufficiently freckled with the frequent reciprocation of it, upon the polished surface, so as to render the ground dark enough, it is to be abated with the style, and treated as we have already described. Of this sort I have seen a head of the queen Christina, graved, if I mistake not, as big as the life, but not comparable to the mezzotinto of prince Rupert, so deservedly celebrated by J. Evelyn."

Mr. Evelyn’s next publication was the most important of all his works: 15. “Sylva; or, a dicourse of Foresttrees, and the propagation of timber in his majesty’s dominions 5 as it was delivered in the royal society the 15th of October, 1662, Upon occasion of certain queries propounded to that illustrious assembly by the honourable the principal officers and commissioners of the navy.” To which is annexed, “Pomona, or, an appendix concerning fruit-trees, in relation to cider, the making and several ways of ordering it: published by express order of the royal society,” Lond. 1664, fol. This was the first work written by the command, and published in virtue of an order, of the royal society, signed by the lord viscount Brouncker, their president, and dedicated to the king. The second edition of it was published in 1669, with a new dedication to king Charles II. dated from Sayes-court, Aug. 24; the first paragraph of which deserves the reader’s notice. “Sir, This second edition of Sylva, after more than a thousand copies had been bought up and dispersed of the first impression, in much less than two years space (which booksellers assure us is a very extraordinary thing in volumes of this bulk), conies now again to pay its homage to your serene majesty, to whose auspices alone it owes the favourable acceptance which it has received in the world. But it is not that alone which it presumes to tell your majesty, but to acquaint you that it has been the sole occasion for furnishing your almost exhausted dominions with more, I dare say, than two millions of timber-trees, besides infinite others, which have been propagated within the three nations at the instigation and by the direction of this work; and that the author of it is able, if need require, to make it out by a competent volume of letters and acknowledgments, which are come to his hands, from several persons of the most eminent quality, many of them illustrious, and divers of them unknoun to him, in justification of what he asserts; which he the rather preserves with the more care, because they are testimonials from so many honourable persons ‘of the benefit they have received from the endeavours of the royal society, which now-a-days passes through so many censures; but she has yet your majesty for her founder and patron, and is therefore the’ less concerned, since no man of worth can lightly speak ill of an assembly v.hich your majesty has thought fit to dignify by so signal a relation to it.” The third edition, with great additions and improvements, was published in 1G79; the fourth in 1705, and the fifth in 1729, both very incorrect. In 1776 a new edition of the “Sylva” was published in 4to, by Dr. Andrew Hunter, of York, a gentleman eminently qualified for the undertaking. Under the care of this gentleman the work appeared with every possible advantage; and was enriched by the judicious editor with ample and copious notes, and adorned with a set of fine engravings. A head of Mr. Evelyn is prefixed, drawn and engraved by Battolozzi. Dr. Hunter’s edition of the Sylva has been four times reprinted. The edition of 1812 contains the deceased editor’s last corrections . 16. “A parallel of the antient architecture with the modern, in a collection of ten principal authors who have written upon the five orders, viz. Palladio and Scammozzi, Serlio and Vignola D. Barbaro and Cataneo L. B. Alberti and Viola, Bullant and De Lorme compared with one another. The three Greek orders, Doric, Ionic, and Corinthian, comprise the first part of this treatise, and the two Latin, Tuscan and Composite, the latter written in French by Roland Freart, sieur de Chambray made English for the benefit, of builders to which is added, an account of architects and architecture^ in an historical and etymological explanation of certain terms, particularly affected by architects; with Leon Baptista Alberti’s treatise of statues,” London, 1664, folio. This work, as well as the former, is dedicated to king Charles II.; and the dedication dated from Sayes-court, August 20th, contains^some curious facts. After an apology for prefixing his royal name to a translation, our author proceeds thus: “I know none, indeed, to whom I could more aptly inscribe a discourse of building, than to so royal a builder, whose august attempts have already given so great a splendour to our imperial city, and so illustrious an example to the nation It is from this contemplation, sir, that after I had, by the commands of the royal society, endeavoured the improvement of timber and the planting of trees, I have advanced to that of building, as its proper and mutual consequent, not with a presumption to incite or instruct your majesty, which were a vanity unpardonable, but, by it, to take occasion of celebrating your majesty’s great example, who use your empire and authority so worthily, as fortune seems to have consulted her reason, when she poured her favours upon you; so as I never cast my eyes on that generous designation in the epigram, Ut donem pastor K tedificem, without immediate reflection on your majesty, who seem only to value those royal advantages you have above others, that you may oblige, and that you may build. And certainly, sir, your majesty has consulted the noblest way of establishing your greatness, and of perpetuating your memory, since, while stones can preserve inscriptions, your name will be famous to posterity; and, when those materials fail, the benefits that are engraven in our hearts will outlast those of marble. It will be no paradox, but a truth, to affirm, that your majesty has already built and repaired more in three or four years, notwithstanding the difficulties and the necessity of an extraordinary ceconomy for the public concernment, than all your enemies have destroyed in twenty, nay than all your majesty’s predecessors have advanced in an hundred, as I could easily make out, not only by what your majesty has so magnificently designed and carried on at that your ancient honour of Greenwich, under the conduct of your most industrious and worthy surveyor, but in those splendid apartments and other useful reformations for security and delight about your majesty’s palace at Whitehall the chargeable covering first, then paving and reformation of Westminster-hall care and preparation for rebuilding St. Paul’s, by the impiety and iniquity of the late confusions almost dilapidated; what her majesty the queen-mother has added to her palace at Somerset-house, in a structure becoming her royal grandeur, and the due veneration of all your majesty’s subjects, for the lioirnir she has done both this your native city, and the whole nation. Nor may I here omit, what I so much desire to transmit to posterity, those noble and profitable amoenities of your majesty’s plantations, wherein you most resemble the divine architect, because your majesty has proposed in it such a pattern to your subjects, as merit their imitation and protoundest acknowledgments, in one of the most worthy and kingly improvements tbat nature is capable of. 1 know not what they talk of former ages, and of the now contemporary princes with your majesty these things are visible and should I here descend to more particulars, which yet were not foreign to the subject of this discourse, I would provoke the whole world to produce me an example parallel with your majesty, for your exact judgment and marvellous ability in all that belongs to the naval architecture, both as to its proper terms and more solid use, in which your majesty is master of one of the most noble and profitable arts that can be wished, in a prince to whom God has designed the dominion of the ocean, which renders your majesty’s empire universal; where, by exercising your royal talent and knowledge that way, you can bring even the antipodes to meet, and the poles to kiss each other; for so likewise, not in a metaphorical but natural sense, your equal and prudent government of this nation has made it good, whilst your majesty has so prosperously guided this giddy bark, through such a storm, as no hand, save your majesty’s, could touch the helm, but at the price of their temerity.” There is also another dedication to sir John Denham, knight of the bath, superintendent and surveyor of all his majesty’s buildings and works, in which there are several matters of fact worth knowing, as indeed there are in all Mr. Evelyn’s dedications; for, though no man was naturally more civil, or more capable of making a compliment handsomely, yet his merit was always conspicuous in his good manners; and he never thought that the swelling sound of a well-turned period could atone for want of sense. It appears from the dedication of the second edition of the Sylva to king Charles II. that there was a second edition of this work also in the same year, viz. 1669, as there was a third in 1697, which was the last in the author’s life-time. In this third edition, which is very much improved, “the account of Architects and Architecture,” which is an original work of Mr. Evelyn’s, and a most excellent one of its kind, is dedicated to sir Christopher Wren, surveyor to his majesty’s buildings and works; and there is in it another of those incidental passages that concern the personal history of our author. Having said in the first paragraph, that, if the whole art of building were lost, it might be found again in the noble works of that great architect, which, though a very high, is no unjust compliment, more especially, continues our author, St. Paul’s church and the Monument; he then adds, “I have named St. Paul’s, and truly not without admiration, as oft as I recall to mind, as frequently I do, the sad and deplorable condition it was in, when, after it had been made a stable of horses and a den of thieves, you, with other gentlemen and myself, were, by the late king Charles, named commissioners to survey the dilapidations, and to make report to his majesty, in order to a speedy reparation. You will not, I am sure, forget the struggle we had with some who were for patching it up any how, so the steeple might stand, instead of new-building, which it altogether needed: when, to put an end to the contest, five days after (August 27, Sept. 1666), that dreadful conflagration happened, out of whose this phoenix is risen, and was by providence designed for you. The circumstance is too remarkable, that I could not pass it over without notice. I will now add no more, but beg your pardon for this confidence of mine, after I have acquainted you that the parallel to which this was annexed being out of print, I was importuned by the bookseller to add something to a new impression, but to which I was no way inclined; till, not long since, going to St. Paul’s, to contemplate that august pile, and the progress you have made, some of your chief workmen gratefully acknowledging the assistance it had afforded them, I took this opportunity of doing myself this honour.” The fourth edition of this work, printed long after our author’s death, viz. in 1733, was in folio, as well as the rest; to which is added “The Elements of Architecture,” by sir Henry Wotton, and some other things, of which, however, hints were met with in our author’s pieces. 17. “Mwrtyj/ov Tjjj AvaiMos; that is, another part of the mystery of Jesuitism, or the new heresy of the Jesuits, publicly maintained at Paris, in the college of Clermont, the twelfth of December, 1661, declared to all the bishops of France, according to the copy printed at Paris. Together with the imaginary heresy, in three letters; with divers other particulars relating to this abominable mystery never before published in English;” Lond. 1664, 8vo. This, indeed, has not our author’s name to it; but that it is really his, and that he had reasons for not owning it more publicly, appears from a letter from him to Mr. Boyle. 18. “Kalendarium Hortense, or the gardener’s almanac, directing what he is to do monthly throughout the year, and what fruits and flowers are in prime,” Lond. 1664, 8vo. The second edition of this book, which seems to have been in folio, and bound with the Sylva and Pomona, as it was in the third edition, was dedicated to Cowley, with great compliments from our author to that poet, to whom it had been communicated before; which occasioned Cowley’s addressing to John Evelyn, esq. his mixed essay in verse and prose, entitled “The Garden.” This passed through at least nine editions. The author made many additions as long as he lived and the best was that printed by way of appendix to the fourth and last edition of the Sylva in his life-time. 19. “The history of the three late famous impostors, viz. Padre Ottotnano, pretended son and heir to the late grand signior; Mahomet Bei, a pretended prince of the Ottoman family, but, in truth, a Wallachian counterfeit: and Sabbatai Sevi, the supposed Messiah of the Jews, in the year 1666; with a brief account of the ground and occasion of tjie present war between the Turk and the Venetian: together with the cause of the final extirpation, destruction, and exile, of the Jews out of the empire of Persia,” Lond. 1668, 8vo. This piece is dedicated to Henry earl of Arlington, and the dedication is subscribed J. E. and, if Mr. Wood had seen it, he would not have said, “I know nothing yet to the contrary but this may be a translation.” The nature and value of this little piece were much better known abroad: one of the best literary journals, “Act. Eruditorum Lipsiensiutn,” A. D. 1690, p. 605, having given, though at some distance of time, a very just character of it, with this very remarkable circumstance, that the pretended Mahomet Bei was at that very juncture in the city of Leipsic. There is added, at the end of this piece, an account of the extirpation of the Jews in Persia during the reign of Shah Abbas the second, which is not so large or perfect as the rest; of which circumstance the author gives a hint, and does not press any thing farther than he is supported by authorities. He mentions a person, who, the very year that the book was published, took upon him the title of brother to the famous count Serini, and that he had the misfortune to be shipwrecked in the west of England, by which he imposed upon persons of quality, till, by unluckily calling for drink upon the road in very audible English, he discovered the cheat. He farther remarks, with regard to Sabbatai Sevi, that he was the twenty-fifth false Messiah that had attempted to impose upon the Jews, even according to their own account. 20. “Public employment and an active life preferred to solitude, in a reply to a late ingenious essay of a contrary title,” Lond. 1667, in 8vo. This was written in answer to a discourse of sir George Mackenzie’s, preferring solitude to public employment, which was at the time of its publication much admired; and, as our author apprehended this might prove an encouragement to indolence and timidity, he therefore wrote against it. We have in the Transactions of the royal society a character of this, and thie piece before mentioned, which follows the account given of the second edition of the “Sylva,” Philosoph. Trans. No. 53; and the reader will find some ingenious strictures on “Public employment, &c.” in vol. 1. of the Censura Literaria, by one who knows well how to improve solitude. 21. “An idea of the perfection of painting, demonstrated from the principles of art, and by examples conformable to the observations which Pliny and Quintilian have made upon the most celebrated pieces of the ancient painters, paralleled with some works of the most famous modern painters, Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Julio Romano, and N. Poussin. Written in French by Roland Freart, Sieur de Cambray, and rendered English by J. E. esquire, fellow of the royal society;” Lond. 1668, 8vo, This translation is dedicated to Henry Howard, of Norfolk, heir apparent to that dukedom and the dedication is dated from Say es-court, June the 24th, 1668, 8vo. This piece, like most of Mr. Evelyn’s works, is now become exceeding scarce. In the preface he observes, that the reader will find in this discourse divers useful, remarks, especially where the author “treats of costume, which we, continues he, have interpreted decorum, as the nearest expression our language would bear to it. And I was glad our author had reproved it in so many instances, because it not only grows daily more licentious, but even ridiculous and intolerable. But it is hoped this may universally be reformed! when our modern workmen shall consider, that neither the exactness of their design, nor skilfulness in colouring, ha.s been able to defend their greatest predecessors from just reproaches, who have been faulty in this particular. I could exemplify in many others, whom our author has omitted; and there is none but takes notice what injury it has done the fame of some of our best reputed painters, and how indecorous it is to introduce circumstances, wholly improper to the usages and genius of the places where our histories are supposed to. have beeq acted.” Mr. Evelyn then remarks, that this was not only the fault of Bassano, who would be ever bringing in his wife, children, and servants, his dog and his cat, and very kitchen-stuff, after the Paduan mode; but of the great Titian himself, Georgipn, Tintoret, and the rest; as Paulo Veronese is observed also to have done, in his story of Pharaoh’s daughter drawing Moses out of the river, attended with a guard of Swisses. Malvogius likewise, in a picture then in the king’s gallery at Whitehall, not only represents our first parents with navels upon their bellies, but has placed an artificial stone fountain, carved with imagery, in the midst of his paradise. Nor does that excellent and learned painter, Rubens, escape without censure, not only for making most of his figures of the shapes of brawny Flemings, but for other sphalmata and circumstances of the like nature, though in some he has acquitted himself to admiration, in the due observation of costume, particularly in his crucifixes, &c. Raphael Urbino was, doubtless, one of the first who reformed these inadvertencies; but it was more conspicuous in his latter than in his former pieces. “As for Michael Angelo,” continues Mr. Evelyn, “though I heartily consent with our critic in reproving that almost idolatrous veneration of his works, who hath certainly prodigiously abused the art, not only in the table this discourse arraigns him for, but several more which I have seen; yet I conceive he might have omitted some of those embittered reproaches he has reviled him with, who doubtless was one of the greatest masters of his time, and however he might succeed as to the decorum, was hardly exceeded for what he performed in sculpture and the statuary art by many even of the ancients themselves, and haply by none of the moderns: witness his Moses, Christus in Gremio, and several other figures at Rome to say nothing of his talent in architecture, and the obligation the world has to his memory, for recovering many of its most useful ornaments and members out of the neglected fragments, which lay so long buried, and for vindicating that antique and magnificent manner of building from the trifling of Goths and barbarians.” He observes next, that the usual reproach of painting has been the want of judgment in perspective, and bringing more into history than is justifiable upon one aspect, without turning the eye to each figure in particular, and multiplying the points of sight, which is a point even monsieur Freart, for all the pains he has taken to magnify that celebrated Decision of Paris, has failed in. For the knowing in that art easily perceive, that even Raphael himself has not so exactly observed it, since, instead of one, as monsieur Freart takes it to be, and as indeed it ought to have been, there are no less than four or five; as du Bosse hath well observed in his treatise of “The converted painter,” where, by the way also, he judiciously numbers amongst the faults against costume, those landscapes, grotesque figures, &c. which we frequently find abroad especially for, in our country, we have few or none of those graceful supplements of steeples painted, horizontally and vertically on the vaults and ceilings of cupolas, since we have no examples for it from the ancients, who allowed no more than a frett to the most magnificent and costly of those which they erected. But, would you know whence this universal caution in most of their works proceeded, and that the best of our modern painters and architects have succeeded better than others of that profession, it must be considered, that they were learned men, good historians, and generally skilled in the best antiquities; such were Raphael, and doubtless his scholar Julio; and, if Polydore arrived not to the glory of letters, he yet attained to a rare habit of the ancient gusto, as may be interpreted from most of his designs and paintings. Leon Baptist Alberti was skilled in all the politer parts of learning to a prodigy, and has written several curious things in the Latin tongue. We know that, of later times, Rubens was a person universally learned, as may be seen in several Latin epistles of his to the greatest scholars of his age. And Nicholas Poussin, the Frenchman, who is so much celebrated and so deservedly, did, it seems, arrive to this by his indefatigable industry “as the present famous statuary, Bernini, now living,” says Mr. Evelyn, “has also done so universal a mastery, that, not many years since, he is reported to have built a theatre at Rome, for the adornment whereof he not only cut the figures and painted the scenes, but wrote the play, and composed the music, which was all in recitative. And I am persuaded, that all this is not yet by far so much as that miracle and ornament of our age and country, Dr. Christopher Wren, were able to perform, if he were so disposed, and so encouraged, because he is master of so many admirable advantages beyond them. I alledge these examples partly to incite, and partly to shew the dignity and vast comprehension of this rare art, and that for a man to arrive to its utmost perfection, he should be almost as universal as the orator in Cicero, and the architect in Vitruvius. But, certainly, some tincture in history, the optics and anatomy, are absolutely requisite, and more, iri the opinion of our author, than to be a steady designer, and skilled in the tempering and applying of colours, which, amongst most of our modern workmen, go now for the only accomplishments of a painter.”

, president of the parliament of Grenoble, was born Dec. 22, 1561, at Voiron in Dauphiny. His father Claude Expilli had acquired great reputation in the army. This his son studied first at Turin, and in 1581 and 1582 went through a course of law studies at Padua, where he became acquainted with many of the most learned men of his time, particularly Speroni, Torniel, Decianus, I'ancirollus, Pinelli, Zabarella, Picolomini, &c. On his return to France, he took his doctor’s degree at Bourges, where the celebrated James Cujas bestowed high praise on. him. He then settled at Grenoble, and acquired such distinction among the advocates of the parliament, that the king Henry IV. considered him as fit for the highest offices in law. Expilli was accordingly promoted to that of king’s procurator in the chamber of finances, king’s advocate in parliament, and lastly that of president. The same monarch, as well as Louis XIII. employed him in many important affairs in thecomte Venaissin, Piedmont, and Savoy, where he was first president of the parliament of Chamberi, after that city was taken in 1C 30. Three years after, the king made use of his services at Piguerol; but on his return to Grenoble, he died July 22 or 23, 1636, in the seventy- fifth year of his age. James Philip Thomasini, bishop of Citta Nova, wrote his eloge, and his life was written by Antony Boniel de Catilhon, his nephew, and advocate general of the chamber of accounts in Dauphiny. It was printed at Grenoble in 1660, 4to. Cherier, in his History of that province, says of him, that his works are an incontestable proof of his learning, which was by no means confined. He. was an orator, lawyer, historian, and poet, a man of excellent private character, and a liberal patron of merit, which alone was a sure introduction to his favour. His works are both in prose and verse. His “Pleadings” were printed at Paris, 1612, 4to. His French poems, after the greater part of them had been printed separately, were collected in a large volume, 4to, printed at Grenoble in 1624; and among them are some prose essays on the fountains of Vals and Vivarez, and on the use of medicinal waters; a supplement to the history of the chevalier Bayard, &c. He wrote also a treatise on “French orthography,” Lyons, 1618, folio, in which, however, he has not shewn much judgment, having proposed to spell according to pronunciation; and upon the whole, it appears that, although a man of learning as well as probity, he was a better magistrate than a writer.

At the age of twenty he began his theological studies, and in 1686 returned to Amsterdam, where he remained for a year, during which he had frequent disputes with his old Hebrew master on the subject of the Messiah. In 1687 he was ordained according to the forms of the Dutch church, and preached first at Velzen, where he was much admired, and here he married Anne van Teylingen, the daughter of a gentleman high in office in the Dutch East Indies. In 1696, the church of Leyden invited him to “become their pastor, which he accepted; and in 1705, on the death of James Trigland, he succeeded to the chair of divinity professor, of which he took possession Dec. 13, with an oration on the subject of” Jesus Christ the sole and perpetual foundation of the church.“Besides his professorship, he had, like his predecessor, the charge of the schools attached to the college. So much employment rendered it necessary for him to resign part of his pastoral charge, but he fulfilled his share of its duties until within four years of his death. In 1723 the curators of the university of Leyden founded a professorship of sacred eloquence, and appointed him to it, where his business was to teach the art of preaching. In 1726 the London society for the propagation of the gospel elected him a member. In 1737 he suffered very much by the consequences of a repelled gout, which at length proved fatal on July 27, 1738. Fabricius was four times rector magmficus of the university, in 1708, 1716, 1724, and 1736. On taking leave on this last occasion, he delivered a harangue very suitable to his age and character, on the duty of Christians in general, and divines in particular when they arrived at old age. The synod of South Holland had likewise chosen liim as one of their deputies. His works consist of five volumes of dissertations, the subjects of which he had treated, but not so fully, in his academical orations. 1” Chi istus unicum ac perpetuum fundamentum ec­'lesiae,“Leyden, 1717, 4to. 2.” De Sacerdotio Christ! juxta ordinemjlelchizedeci,“ibid. 1720, 4to. 2.” Christo* gia Noachica et Abrahamica,“ibid. 1727, 4to. This consists of twelve dissertations on several passages in the Old and New Testament, calculated to prove that Christ was the object of the faith of Noah and Abraham. At the end are some letters to the author. 4.” De Fide Christiana Patriarcharum & Prophetarum,“ibid. 4to. 5.” Orator Sacer," ibid. 1733, 4to. This contains the substance of his lectures on preaching, and is a complete treatise on the subject, although in some respects peculiarly adapted for the church of which he was a member. His sentiments, however, are so liberal, his view of the subject so comprehensive, and his historical illustrations so happy, that we are rather surprized this work has not found its way into ths country, by translation. Fabricius published also six sermons preached on public occasions.

, a man eminent for wit and learning, and for the civil employments with which he was honoured, was born at Hamburgh in 1613. He was a good poet, an able physician, a great orator, and a learned civilian. He gained the esteem of all the learned in Holland while he studied at Leyden; and they liked his Latin poems so well, that they advised him to print them. He was for some time counsellor to the bishop of Lubec, and afterwards syndic of the city of Dantzic. This city also honoured him with the dignity of burgomaster^ and sent him thirteen times deputy in Poland. He died at Warsaw, during the diet of the kingdom, in 1667. The first edition of his poems, in 1632, was printed upon the encouragement of Daniel Heinsius, at whose house he lodged. He published a second in 1638, with corrections and additions: to which he added a satire in prose, entitled “Pransus Paratus,” which he dedicated to Salmasius; and in which he keenly ridiculed the poets who spend their time in making anagrams, or licentious verses, as also those who affect to despise poets. The most complete edition of his poems is that of Leipsic, 1685, published under the direction of his son. It contains also Orations of our author, made to the kings of Poland; an Oration spoken at Leyden in 1632, concerning the siege and deliverance of that city and the Medical Theses, which were the subject of his public disputations at Leyden in 1634, &c.

, a learned Italian orator and grammarian, was born Jan. 4, 1682, at Toreglia, and studied principally at Padua, where he took his degree of doctor in divinity in 1704, and taught for some time, and afterwards was professor of philosophy for three years. He was then appointed regent of the schools. As the Greek and Latin languages were now his particular department, he bestowed much pains in providing his scholars with suitable assistance, and with that view, reviewed and published new and improved editions of the Lexicons of Calepinus, Nizolius, and Schrevelius. Some years after he was promoted to be logic professor, and in that as well as the former situation, endeavoured to introduce a more correct and useful mode of teaching, and published a work on the subject for the use of his students. In 1739, when the business of teaching metaphysics was united to that of logic, Facciolati was desirous of resigning, that he might return to his original employment; but the magistrates of Padua would by no means allow that their university should be deprived of his name, and therefore, allowing him to retain his title and salary, only wished him to take in hand the history of the university of Padua, which Papadopoli had written, and continue it down to the present time. This appears, from a deficiency of proper records, a very arduous task, yet by dint of perseverance he accomplished it in a manner, which although not perfectly satisfactory, as far as regards the “Fasti Gymnastici,” yet was entirely so in the “Syntagmata.” He wrote also some works in theology and morals, and had the ambition to be thought a poet, but his biographer Fabroni thinks that in this he was not successful. His principal excellence was as a classical scholar and critic, especially in the Latin, and his high fame procured him an invitation from the king of Portugal to superintend a college for the young nobility at Lisbon, but he excused himself on account of his advanced age. Fabroni mentions a set of china sent to him by this sovereign, which he says was a very acceptable present, and corresponded to the elegant furniture of Facciolati’s house. He had a garden in which he admitted no plants or fruittrees but what were of the most choice and rare kind, and four or five apples from Facciolati’s garden was thought no mean present. In every thing he was liberal to his friends, and most benevolent to the poor. He died in advanced age of the iliac passion, Aug. 27, 1769.

, a celebrated canonist of the seventeenth century, was regarded at Rome as an orator, and every cause which he took in hand as successful. He was for about fifteen years secretary to several popes, all of whom entertained a high respect for his talents, and frequently consulted him. He became blind at the age of forty-four, which misfortune does not appear to have interfered with his professional labours, for it was after this that he composed his celebrated " Commentary on the Decretals/' in 3 vols. folio, which extended his fame throughout all Europe. It was dedicated to pope Alexander VII. by whose order he had engaged in the undertaking, and was printed at Rome in 1661, and five times reprinted. The best edition is that of Venice, 1697, in which the entire text of the Decretals is given. Fagnani continued deprived of his sight, but in full possession of his mental faculties until his death in 1678, as it is supposed, in the eightieth year of his age. His memory appears to have been uncommon, and the stores of learning he had laid up before he was deprived of his sight he could bring forth with promptitude and accuracy, even to a quotation from the poets whom he studied in his youth.

Hitherto, the crafty and ambitious Cromwell had permitted him to enjoy in all respects the supreme command, at least to outward appearance. And, under his conduct, the army’s rapid success, after their new model, had much surpassed the expectation of the most sanguine of their masters, the parliament* The question now was, to disband the majority of them after their work was done, and to employ a part of the rest in the reduction of Ireland. But either of the two appeared to all of them intolerable. For, many having, from the dregs of the people, risen to the highest commands, and by plunderings and violence amassing daily great treasures, they could not bear the thoughts of losing such great advantages. To maintain themselves therefore in the possession of them, Cromwell, and his son-in-law Ireton, as good a contriver as himself, but a much better writer and speaker, devised how to raise a mutiny in the army against the parliament. To this end they spread a whisper among the soldiery, “that the parliament, now they had the king, intended to disband them; to cheat them of their arrears; and to send them, into Ireland, to be destroyed by the Irish.” The army, enraged at this, were taught by Ireton to erect a council among themselves, of two soldiers out of every troop and every company, to consult for the good of the army, and to assist at the council of war, and advise for the peace and safety of the kingdom. These, who were called adjutators, or agitators, were wholly under Cromwell’s influence and direction, the most active of them being his avowed creatures. Sir Thomas saw with uneasiness his power on the army usurped by these agitators, the forerunners of confusion and anarchy, whose design (as he observes) was to raise their own fortunes upon the public ruin; and that made him resolve to lay down his commission. But he was over-persuaded by the heads of the Independent faction to hold it till he had accomplished their desperate projects, of rendering themselves masters not only of the parliament, but of the whole kingdom; for, he joined in the several petitions and proceedings of the army that tended to destroy the parliament’s power. About the beginning of June, he advanced towards London, to awe the parliament, though both houses desired his army might not come within fifteen miles of the same; June 15, he was a party in the charge against eleven of the members of the house of commons; in August, he espoused the speakers of both houses, and the sixty -six members that had fled to the army, and betrayed the privileges of parliament: and, entering London, August 6, restored them in a kind of triumph; for which he received the thanks of both houses, and was appointed constable of the Tower. On the other hand it is said that he was no way concerned in, the violent removal of the king from Holmby, by cornet Joyce, on the 3d of June; and waited with great respect upon his majesty at sir John Cutts’s house near Cambridge. Being ordered, on the 15th of the same month, by the parliament, to deliver the person of the king to such persons as both houses should appoint; that he might be brought to Richmond, where propositions were to be presented to him for a safe and well-grounded peace; instead of complying (though he seemed to do so) he carried his majesty from place to place, according to the several motions of the army, outwardly expressing, upon most occasions, a due respect for him, but, not having the will or resolution to oppose what he had not power enough to prevent, he resigned himself entirely to Cromwell. It was this undoubtedly that made him concur, Jan. 9, 1647-8, in that infamous declaration of the army, of “No further addresses or application to the king; and resolved to stand by the parliament, in what should be further necessary for settling and securing the parliament and kingdom, without the king and against him.” His father dying at York, March 13, he became possessed of his title and estate and was appointed keeper of Pontefract-castle, custos rotulorum of Yorkshire, &c. in his room. But his father’s death made no alteration in his conduct, he remaining the same servile or deluded tool to Cromwell’s ambition. He not only sent extraordinary supplies, and took all pains imaginable for reducing colonel Poyer in Wales, but also quelled, with the utmost zeal and industry, an insurrection of apprentices and others in London, April 9, who had declared for God and king Charles. The 1st of the same month he removed his head-quarters to St. EdmundV bury; and, upon the royalists seizing Berwick and Carlisle, and the apprehension of the Scots entering England, he was desired, May 9, by the parliament, to advance in person into the North, to reduce those places, and to prevent any danger from the threatened invasion. Accordingly he began to march that way the 20th. But he was soon recalled to quell an insurrection in Kent, headed by George Goring, earl of Norwich, and sir William Waller. Advancing therefore against them from London in the latter end of May, he defeated a considerable party of them at Maidstone, June 2, with his usual valour. But the earl and about 500 of the royalists, getting over the Thames at Greenwich into Essex, June 3, they were joined by several parties brought by sir Charles Lucas, and Arthur lord Capel, which made up their numbers about 400; and went and shut themselves up in Colchester on the 12th of June. Lord Fairfax, informed of their motions, passed over with his forces at Gravesend with so much expedition, that he arrived before Colchester June 13. Immediately he summons the royalists to surrender; which they refusing, he attacks them the same afternoon with the utmost fury, but, being repulsed, he resolved, June 14, to block up the place in order to starve the royalists into a compliance. These endured a severe and tedious siege of eleven weeks, not surrendering till August 28, and feeding for about five weeks chiefly on horse-flesh; all their endeavours for obtaining peace on honourable terms being ineffectual. This affair is the most exceptionable part in lord Fairfax’s conduct, if it admits of degrees, for he granted worse terms to that poor town than to any other in the whole course of the war he endeavoured to destroy it as much as possible he laid an exorbitant fine, or ransom, of J2,000l. upon the inhabitants, to excuse them from being plundered; and he vented his revenge and fury upon sir Charles Lucas and sir George Lisle, who had behaved in the most inoffensive manner during the siege, sparing that buffoon the earl of Norwich, whose behaviour had been quite different: so that his name and memory there ought to be for ever detestable. After these mighty exploits against a poor and unfortified town, he made a kind of triumphant progress to Ipswich, Yarmouth, Norwich, St. Edmund’s-bui y, Harwich, Mersey, and Maldon. About the beginning of December he came to London, to awe thatcity and the parliament, and to forward the proceedings against the king quartering himself in the royal palace of Whitehall: and it was by especial order from him and the council of the army, that several members of the house of commons were secluded and imprisoned, the 6th and 7th of that month; he being, as Wood expresses it, lulled in a kind of stupidity. Yet, although his name stood foremost in the list of the king’s judges, he refused to act, probably by his lady’s persuasion. Feb. 14, 1648-9, he was voted to be one of the new council of state, but on the 19th he refused to subscribe the test, appointed by parliament, for approving all that was done concerning the king and kingship. March 31 he was voted general of all the forces in England and Ireland; and in May he inarched against the levellers, who were grown very numerous, and began to be troublesome and formidable in Oxfordshire, and utterly routed them atBurford. Thence, on the 22d of the same month, he repaired to Oxford with Oliver Cromwell, and other officers, where he was highly feasted, and created LL.D. Next, upon apprehension of the like risings in other places, he went and viewed the castles and fortifications in the Isle of Wight, and at Southampton, and Portsmouth; and near Guildford had a rendezvous of the army, which he exhorted to obedience. June 4, he was entertained, with other officers, &c. by the city of London, and presented with a large and weighty bason and ewer of beaten gold. In June 1650, upon the Scots declaring for king Charles II. the juncto of the council of state having taken a resolution to be beforehand, and not to stay to be invaded from Scotland, but to carry first the war into that kingdom; general Fairfax, being consulted, seemed to approve of the design: but afterwards, by the persuasions of his lady, and of the presbyterian ministers, he declared himself unsatisfied that there was a just ground for the parliament of England to send their army to invade Scotland and resolved to lay down his commission rather than engage in that affair and on the 26th that high trust was immediately committed to Oliver Cromwell, who was glad to see him removed, as being no longer necessary, but rather an obstacle to his farther ambitious designs. Being thus released from all public employment, he went and lived quietly at his own house in Nun-Appleton in Yorkshire; always earnestly wishing and praying (as we are assured) for the restitution of the royal family, and fully resolved to lay hold on the first opportunity to contribute his part towards it, which made him always looked upon with a jealous eye by the usurpers of that time. As soon as he was invited by general Monk to assist him against Lambert’s army, he cheerfully embraced the occasion, and appeared, on the 3d of December 1659, at the head of a body of gentlemen of Yorkshire and, upon the reputation and authority of his name, the Irish brigade of 1200 horse forsook Lambert’s army, and joined him. The consequence was, the immediate breaking of all Lambert’s forces, which gave general Monk an easy inarch into England. The 1st of January 1659-60, his lordship made himself master of York; and, on the 2d of the same month, was chosen by the rump parliament one of the council of state, as he was again on the 23d of February ensuing. March '29 he was elected one of the knights for the county of York, in the healing parliament; and was at the head of the committee appointed May 3, by the house of commons, to go and attend king Charles II. at the Hague, to desire him to make a speedy return to his parliament, and to the exercise of his kingly office. May 16 he waited upon his majesty with the rest, and endeavoured to atone in some measure for all past offences, by readily concurring and assisting in his restoration. After the dissolution of the short healing parliament, he retired again to his seat in the country, where he lived in a private manner till his death, which happened November 12, 1671, in the sixtieth year of his age. Several letters, remonstrances, and other papers, subscribed with his name, are preserved in Rushworth and other collections, being published during the time he was general; but he disowned most of them. After his decease, some “short memorials, written by himself,” were published in 1699, 8vo, by Brian Fairfax, esq. but do his lordship no great honour, either as to principle, style, or accuracy. Lord Fairfax, as to his person, was tall, but not above the just proportion, and of a gloomy and melancholy disposition. He stammered a little, and was a bad orator ou the most plausible occasions. As to the qualities of his mind, he was of a good natural disposition; a great lover of learning, having contributed to the edition of the Polygiott, and other large works; and a particular admirer of the History and Antiquities of Great Britain, as appears by the encouragement he gave to Mr. Dodsvrorth. In religion he professed Presbyterianismn, but where he first learned that, unless ia the army, does not appear. He was of a meek and humble carriage, and but of few words in discourse and council; yet, when his judgment and reason were satisfied, he was unalterable; and often ordered things expressly contrary to the judgment of all his council. His valour was unquestionable. He was daring, and regardless of self-interest, and, we are told, in the field he appeared so highly transported, that scarcely any durst speak a word to him, and he would seem like a man distracted and furious. Had not the more successful ambition and progress of Cromwell eclipsed lord Fairfax’s exploits, he would have been considered as the greatest of the parliamentary commanders; and one of the greatest heroes of the rebellion, had not the extreme narrowness of his genius, in every thing but war, obstructed his shining as a statesman. We have already noticed that he had some taste for literature, and that both at York and at Oxford he endeavoured to preserve the libraries from being pillaged. He also presented twenty-nine ancient Mss. to the Bodleian library, one of which is a beautiful ms. of -Cower' s “Confessio Amantis.” When at Oxford we do not find that he countenanced any of the outrages committed there, but on the contrary, exerted his utmost diligence in preserving the Bodleian from pillage; and, in fact, as Mr. Warton observes, that valuable repository suffered less than when the city was in' the possession of the royalists. Lord Orford has introduced lord Fairfax among his “Royal and Noble Authors,” “not only as an historian, but a poet. In Mr. Thoresby’s museum were preserved in manuscript the following pieces:” The Psalms of David;“”The Song of Solomon“” The Canticles;“and” Songs of Moses, Exod. 15. and Deut. 32.“and other parts of scripture versified.” Poem on Solitude.“Besides which, in the same collection were preserved” Notes of Sermons by his lordship, by his lady, and by their daughter Mary,“the wife of the second duke of Buckingham; and” A Treatise on the Shortness of Life.“But, of all lord Fairfax’s works, by far the most remarkable were some verses which he wrote on the horse on which Charles the Second rode to liis coronation, and which had been bred and presented to the king by his lordship. How must that merry monarch, not apt to keep his countenance on more serious occasions, have smiled at this awkward homage from the old victorious hero of republicanism and the covenant” Besides these, several of his Mss. are preserved in the library at Denton, of which Mr. Park has given a list in his new edition of the “Royal and Noble Authors.”

, an Italian poet of the sixteenth century, was a native of Savona, in the state of Genoa. He published in 1557 a poem, in ottava rima, on the wars of Charles V. in Flanders, and other miscellaneous poems; and in 1558, twelve of his orations were published at Venice by Aldus, in folio. He wrote on the causes of the German war under Charles V. and an Italian translation of Athenagoras on the resurrection, 1556, 4to. He was also one of the authors of the celebrated collection under the title of “Polyanthea.” He was distinguished as a statesman, an orator, and an historian, as well as a poet, and was deputed on an embassy to Venice by Hercules Antestini, duke of Ferrara.

, one of the most celebrated historians and poets of his nation in the seventeenth century, was born March 18, 1590, at Sonto near Caravilla in Portugal, of a noble family, both by his father’s and mother’s side. His father’s name was Arnador Perez d'Eiro, and his mother’s Louisa Faria, but authors are not agreed in their conjectures why he did not take his father’s name, but preferred Faria, that of his mother, and Sousa, which is thought to have been his grandmother’s name. In his infancy he was very infirm, yet made considerable progress, even when a puny child, in writing, drawing, and painting. At the age of ten, his father sent him to school to learn Latin, in which his proficiency by no means answered his expectations, owing to the boy’s giving the preference to the Portuguese and Spanish poets. These he read incessantly, and composed several pieces in verse and prose in both languages, but he had afterwards the good sense to destroy his premature effusions, as well as to perceive that the Greek and Roman classics are the foundation of a true style, and accordingly he endeavoured to repair his error by a careful study of them. In 1604, when only in his fourteenth year, he was received in the Tank of gentleman into the household of don Gonzalez de Moraes, bishop of Porto, who was his relation, and afterwards made him his secretary; and during his residence with this prelate, which lasted ten years, he applied himself indefatigably to his studies, and composed some works, the best of which was an abridgment of the historians of Portugal, “Epitome de las historias Portuguesas, desde il diluyio hasta el anno 1628,” Madrid, 1628, 4to. In this he has been thought to give rather too much scope to his imagination, and to write more like an orator than a historian. In 1612 he fell in love with a lady of Porto, whom he calls Albania, and who was the subject of some of his poems; but it is doubtful whether this was the lady he married in 1614, some time after he left the bishop’s house, on account of his urging him to go into the church, for which he had no inclination. -He remained at Porto until 1618, when he paid his father a visit at Pombeiro. The year following he went to Madrid, and into the service of Peter Alvarez Pereira, secretary of state, and counsellor to Philip the III. and IV. but Pereira did not live long enough to give him any other proof of his regard than by procuring to be made a knight of the order of Christ in Portugal. In 1628 he returned to Lisbon with his family, but quitted Portugal in 1631, owing to his views of promotion being disappointed. Returning to Madrid, he was chosen secretary to the marquis de Castel Rodrigo, who was about to set out for Rome as ambassador at the papal court. At Rome Faria was received with great respect, and his merit acknowledged; but having an eager passion for study, he visited very few. The pope, Urban VIII. received him very graciously, and conversed familiarly with him on the subject of poetry. One of his courtiers requested Faria to write a poem on the coronation of that pontiff, which we find in the second volume of his poems. In 1634, having some reason to be dissatisfied with his master, the ambassador, he quitted his service, and went to Genoa with a view to return to Spain. The ambassador, piqued at his departure, which probably was not very ceremonious, wrote a partial account of it to the king of Spain, who caused Faria to be arrested at Barcelona. So strict was his confinement, that for more than three months no person had access to him; until Jerome de Villa Nova, the prothonotary of Arragon, inquired into the affair, and made his innocence known to the king. This, however, had no other effect than to procure an order that he should be a prisoner at large in Madrid; although the king at the same time assured him that he was persuaded of his innocence, and would allow him sixty ducats per month for his subsistence. Faria afterwards renewed his solicitations to be allowed to remove to Portugal, but in vain; and his confinement in Madrid, with his studious and sedentary life, brought on, in 1647, a retention of urine, the torture of which he bore with great patience. It occasioned his death, however, on June 3, 1640. He appears to have merited an excellent character, but was too little of a man of the world to make his way in it. A spirit of independence probably produced those obstacles which he met with in his progress; and even his dress and manner, we are told, were rather those of a philosopher than of a courtier. Besides his History of Portugal, already mentioned, and of which the best edition was published in 1730, folio, he Wote, 1. “Noches claras,” a collection of moral and political discourses, Madrid, 1623 and 1626, 2 vols. 12mo. 2. “Fuente de Aganipr, o Rimes varias,” a collection of his poems, in 7 vols. Madrid, 1644, &c. 3. “Commentarios sobra las Lusiadas de Luis de Camoens,” an immense commentary on the Lusiad, ibid. 1639, in 2 vols. folio. He is said to have began it in 1614, and to have bestowed twentyfive years upon it. Some sentiments expressed here had alarmed the Inquisition, and the work was prohibited. He was permitted, however, to defend it, which he did in, 4. * Defensa o Information por'los Commentaries, &c.“Madrid, 1640 or 1645, folio. 5.” Imperio de la China, &e.“and an account of the propagation of religion by the Jeuits, written by Semedo: Faria was only editor of this work, Madrid, 1643, 4to. 6.” Nobiliario del Concle D. Petro de Barcelos,“&c. a translation from the Portuguese, with notes, ibid. 1646, folio. 7.” A Life of Don Martin Bapt. de Lanuza,“grand justiciary of Arragon,” ibid. 1650, 4to. 8. “Asia Portuguesa,” Lisbon, 1666, &c. 3 vols. folio. 9. “Europa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1678, 2 vols. folio. 10. “Africa Portuguesa,” ibid. 1681, folio. Of this we have an English Edition by John Stevens, Lond. 1695, 3 vols. 8vo. 11. “America Portuguesa.” All these" historical and geographical works have been considered as correct and valuable. Faria appears to have published some other pieces of less importance, noticed by Antonio.

, an Italian painter, was born at Verona in 1522; his mother dying in labour of him. He was a disciple of Nicolo Golfino, and an admirable designer, but not altogether so happy in his colouring: though there is a piece of his painting in St. George’s church at Verona, 50 well performed in both respects, that it does not seem inferior to one of Paul Veronese, which is placed next to it. He was famous also for being an excellent swordsman, and a very good orator, and Strutt mentions some engravings by him. He had considerable knowledge in sculpture and architecture, especially that part of it which relates to fortifications. His last moments are said to have been as remarkable as his first, on account of the death of his nearest relation. He lay upon his death-bed in 1606; and his wife, who was sick in the same room, hearing him cry out r 4< He was going,“told him,” She would bear him company; and actually did so, as they both expired at the same minute.

, an ancient philosopher and orator, was born at Aries in Gaul, flourished under the emperor Adrian, in the second century, and taught both at Athens and Home with high reputation. Adrian had no kindness for him; for such was the nature and temper of this emperor, that, not content with being the first in dignity and power, he would needs be the first in every thing else. This pedantic affectation led him, as Spartian relates, to deride, to contemn, to trample upon the professors of all arts and sciences, whom he took a pleasure in contradicting upon all occasions, right or wrong. Thus one day he reproved Favorinus, with an air of great superiority, for using a certain word; which, however, was a good word, and frequently used by the best authors. Favorinus submitted patiently to the emperor, without making any reply, though he knew himself to be perfectly right: which when his friends objected to, “Shall not I easily suffer him,” says he, “to be the most learned of all men, who has thirty legions at his command” This philosopher is said to have wondered at three things first, that being a Gaul he should speak Greek so well; secondly, that being an eunuch he should be accused of adultery; and thirdly, that being envied and hated by the emperor he should be permitted to live. Many works are attributed to him; among the rest a Greek work of “Miscellaneous History,” often quoted by Diogenes Lærtius, but none of them are now extant.

As solicitor-general, he took an active part in the trials of the regicides, and in April 1661, by the strong recommendation of lord Clarendon, he was chosen a member of parliament for the university of Oxford; but, says Wood, “he he did us no good, when we wanted his assistance for taking off the tribute belonging to hearths.” In 1665, after the parliament then sitting at Oxford had been prorogued, he was in full convocation created doctor of civil law; and, the creation being over, the vice-chancellor, in t^ie presence of several parliament-men, stood up and spoke to the public orator to do his office, who said, among other things, “That the university wished they had more colleges to entertain the parliament men, and more chambers, but by no means more chimnies;” at which sir Heneage was observed to change countenance, and draw a little back. When the disgrace of lord Clarendon drew on, in 1667, and he was impeached in parliament for some supposed high crimes, sir Heneage, not forgetting his old friend, appeared vigorously in his defence. In 1670, the king appointed him attorney general; and, about three years after, lord keeper. Soon after he was advanced to the degree of a baron, by the title of Lord Finch of Daventry, in the county of Northampton, and upon the surrender of the great seal to his majesty, Dec. 19, 1675, he received it immediately back again, with the title of Lord High Chancellor of England.

He performed the office of high steward at the trial of lord Stafford, who was found guilty of high treason by his peers, for being concerned in the popish plot. On May J2, 1681, he was created earl of Nottingham, and died, quite worn out, at his house in Queen-street, Lincoln’sinn-fields, Dec. Is, 1682, and was buried in the church of Ilaunston near Olney in Buckinghamshire, where his son erected a superb monument to hrs memory. Though he lived in very troublesome and difficult times, yet he conducted himself with such even steadiness, that he retained the good opinion of both prince and people. He was distinguished by his wisdom and eloquence; and was such an excellent orator, that some of his contemporaries have styled him the English Roscius, the English Cicero, &c. Burnet, in the preface to his “History of the Reformation,” telis us, that his great parts and greater virtues were so conspicuous, that it would be a high presumption in him to say any thing in his commendation being in nothing more eminent, than in his zeal for, and care of, the church of England. His character is described by Dryden, or rather Tate, in the second part of “Absalom and Achitophel,” under the name of Amri; but more reliance may be placed on the opinion of judge Blackstone. “He was a person,” says this learned commentator, “of the greatest abilities, and most incorrupted integrity; a thorough master and zealous defender of the laws and constitution of his country; and endued with a pervading genius that enabled him to discover and to pursue the true spirit of justice, notwithstanding the embarrassments raised by the narrow and technical notions which then prevailed in the courts of law, and the imperfect ideas of redress which had possessed the courts of equity. The reason and necessities of mankind, arising from the great change in property, by the extension of trade, and the abolition of military tenures, co-operated in establishing his plan, and enabled him, in the course of nine years, to build a system of jurisprudence and jurisdiction upon wide and rational foundations, which have also been extended and improved by many great men, who have since presided in chancery; and from that time to this, the power and business of the court have increased to an amazing degree.”

, the celebrated bishop of Nismes, distinguished equally for elegant learning, abilities, and exemplary piety, was born June 10, 1632, at Perne, near Avignon, in Provence, and educated in the study of literature and virtue under his uncle Hercules AudifiTret. After the death of this relation, who was principal of the congregation styled De la Doctrine Chretienne, he appeared at Paris, about 1659, where he was soon distinguished as a man of genius, and an able preacher. A description of a carousal, in Latin verse, which, notwithstanding the difficulty of a subject unknown to the ancients, was pure and classical, first attracted the public admiration. It was published in 1669, in folio, and entitled “Cursus Regius,” and has since been included in his miscellaneous works. His funeral orations completed the fame which his sermons had begun. He had pronounced one at Narbonne, in 1659, when professor of rhetoric there, on the bishop of that city, but this is not extant. The first of those that are published, was delivered in 1672, at the funeral of madam de Montausier, whose husband had become his patron and friend. He soon rose to be the rival of Bossuet in this species of eloquence. His oration on mareschal Turenne, pronounced in 1676, is esteemed the most perfect of these productions; it excited at once the liveliest regret for the deceased hero, and the highest admiration of the orator. The last oration in the collection must have agitated his feelings as well as exercised his talents, for it was in honour of his well-tried friend the duke of Montausier, who died in 1690. In 1679 he published his history of the emperor Theodosius the Great, the ouly part that was ever executed, of a plan to instruct the dauphin, by writing for him the lives of the greatest Christian princes. The king, after having testified his regard for him by giving him the abbey of S. iSeverin, and the office of almoner in ordinary to the dauphin, promoted him in 1685 to the see of Lavaur, saying to him at the same time, < Be not surprised that I so Jong delayed to reward your merit; I was afraid of losing the pleasure of hearing your discourses.“Two years after, he was made bishop of Nismes. In his diocese he was no less remarkable for the mildness and indulgence by which he drew hack several protestants to his church, than for his general charity, and attention to the necessities of the unfortunate of all descriptions. At the time of a famine, in 1709, his charity was unbounded, and was extended to persons of all persuasions; and his modesty was at all times equal to his benevolence. Numbers were relieved by him, without knowing the source of their good fortune. His father had been a tallowchandler; but Flechier had too much real greatness of mind to conceal the humbleness of his origin: and, being once insolently reproached on that subject, he had the spirit to reply,” I fancy, sir, from your sentiments, if you had been so born, you would, have made candles still.“It is said that he had a presentiment of his death by means of a dream; in consequence of which, he employed an artist to design a monument for him, wishing to have one that was modest and plain, not such as vanity or gratitude might think it necessary to erect. He urged the artist to execute this design before his death, which happened Feb. 16, 1710.” He died,“says d'Alembert,” lamented by the catholics, regretted by the protestants, having always exhibited to his brethren an excellent model of zeal and charity, simplicity and eloquence."

, nephew to the preceding, was educated at Oxford, and probably in Lincoln college, then newly founded by his uncle. On Jan. 21, 1451, he was admitted dean of Lincoln, being much admired for his learning. He afterwards went to Italy, and visited the principal universities; and among other eminent men, he attended the lectures of the celebrated orator and poet Baptista Guarini, professor of the Greek and Latin languages at Ferrara. From this place he went to Rome, >vhere he remained a year or two, and became acquainted with several learned men, particularly Earth. Platina, librarian of the Vatican. He became also known to pope Sixtus IV, in whose praise, during a summer’s recess at Tibur, or Tivoli, he composed a Latin poem in two books inscribed to his holiness; who was so pleased with it, that he made the author his protonotary. Of this poem, entitled “Lucubrationes Tiburtinae,” we have only a few verses quoted by Leland, and praised by him for the style. At his return from Italy, he brought over with him several books curiously illuminated, which he bequeathed to Lincoln college library, with some of his own composition, among which Leland, Bale, and Pits mention “Dictionarium Graeco-Latinum;” “Carolina diversi generis,” and “Epistolarum ad diversos, liber unus.” On Sept. 27, 1467, he was installed into the prebend of Leigh ton -man or, in the cathedral church of Lincoln, which he exchanged, Dec. 3, 1478, for that of Leighton-Bosard; and he fotmded in this cathedral, a chantry for two chaplains. This learned man died Aug. 12, 1483, and was buried near bishop Flemming, his relation.

, of Florence, son of John Peter Fontius, born in 1445, was a historian, an orator, and a grammarian, and in high esteem with Picus Mirandula, Marsilius Ficinus, Jerome Donatus, and all the literati of his age and country. He had the care of collecting books for the library of Matthew Corvinus, king of Hungary at Buda. He wrote a commentary on Persius, printed at Venice in 1491, and some orations, which were republishecl together at Frankfort, in 1621, 8vo; and died in 1513.

This performance at first, met with some little opposition from the Westminster justices; but the author beirag warmly patronized, their opposition was over-ruled, and, by only altering the title of his piece to “Mr. Foote’s giving Tea to his Friends,” he proceeded without farther molestation, and represented it for upwards of forty mornings to crowded and splendid audiences. The ensuing season he produced another piece of the same kind, called, “An Auction of Pictures;” in which he introduced several new characters, all, howerer, popular, anct extremely well known particularly sir Thomas de Veil, then the leading justice of peace for Westminster Mr. Cock, the celebrated auctioneer and the no less celebrated orator Henley. This piece had also a very great run, nor were any pains spared to procure this success, for it is to be noted, that he himself represented all the principal characters of each piece, where his great mimic powers were necessary, shifting from one to another with all the dexterity of a Proteus.

, a celebrated English printer, was born at Bristol, educated at Winchester school, and admitted fellow of New college, in Oxford, in 1555, after two years of probation, where also he took his master’s degree. But refusing to comply with the terms of protestant conformity in queen Elizabeth’s reign, he resigned his fellowship, after holding it about four years, and, leaving England, took upon him the trade of printing, which he exercised partly at Antwerp, and partly at Louvain; and thus did signal service to the papists, in printing their books against the protestaut writers. Wood says that he was well skilled in Greek and Latin, a tolerable poet and orator, a theologist not to be contemned; and so versed also in criticism and other polite literature, that he might have passed for another Robert or Henry Stephens. He reduced into a compendium the “Summa Theologiæ” of Thomas Aquinas, under the title of “Loca Communia Theologica,” and wrote “Additiones in Chroiiica Genebrandi;” a “Psalter for Catholics,” which was answered by Sampson Dean, of Christ-church, Oxford, 1578; also epigrams, and other verses. He also translated from Latin into English, “The Epistle of Osorius,” and “.The Oration of Pet. Frarin, of Antwerp, against the unlawful insurrection of the protestants, under pretence to reform religion,” Antwerp, 1566. This was answered by William Fulke, divinity-professor in Cambridge. Fowler^died at Newmark, in Germany, Feb. 13, 1579.

, Lord Holland, the first nobleman of that title, was the second and youngest son of the second marriage, of sir Stephen Fox, and brother of Stephen first earl of Ilchester. He was born in 1705, and was chosen one of the members for Hendon, in Wiltshire, on a vacancy, in March 1735, to that parliament which met Jan. 23, 1734; and being constituted surveyor-general of his majesty’s board of works, a writ was ordered June 17, 1737, and he was re-elected. In the next parliament, summoned to meet June 25, 1741, he served for Windsor; and in 1743, being constituted one of the commissioners of the treasury, in the administration formed by the Pelhams, a writ was issued Dec. 21st of that year, for a new election, and he was re-chosen. In 1746, on the restoration of the old cabinet, after the short administration of earl Granville, he was appointed secretary at war, and sworn one his majesty’s most honourable privy-council. On tbis occasion, and until he was advanced to the peerage, he continued to represent Windsor in parliament. In 1754, the death of Mr. Pelham produced a vacancy in the treasury, which was filled up by his broker the duke of Newcastle, who, though a nobleman of high honour, unblemished integrity, and considerable abilities, yet was of too jealous and unstable a temper to manage the house of commons with equal address and activity, and to guide the reins of government without a coadjutor at so arduous a conjuncture. The seals of chancellor of the exchequer and secretary of state, vacant by the death of Mr. Pelham, and by the promotion of the duke of Newcastle, became therefore the objects of contention. The persons who now aspired to the management of the house of commons, were Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt (afterwards earl of Chatham) whose parliamentary abilities had for some time divided the suffrages of the nation; who had so long fosterod reciprocal jealousy, and who now became public rivals for power. Both these rival statesmen were younger brothers, nearly of the same age; both were educated at Eton, both distinguished for classical knowledge, both commenced their parliamentary career at the same period, and both raised themselves to eminence by their superior talents, yet no two characters were ever more contrasted. Mr. Fox inherited a strong and vigorous constitution, was profuse and dissipated in his youth, and after squandering his private patrimony, went abroad to extricate himself from his embarrassment*. On his return he obtained a seat in parliament, and warmly attached himself to sir Robert Walpole, whom he idolized; and to whose patronage he was indebted for the place of surveyor-general of the board of works. His marriage in 1744 with lady Caroline Lennox, daughter of the duke of Richmond, though at first displeasiug to the family, yet finally strengthened his political connections. He was equally a man of pleasure and business, formed for social and convivial intercourse; of an unruffled temper, and frank disposition. No statesman acquired more adherents, not merely from political motives, but swayed by his agreeable manners, and attached to him by personal friendship, which he fully merited by his zeal in promoting their interests. He is justly characterized, even by Lord Chesterfield, “as having no fixed principles of religion or morality, and as too unwary in ridiculing and exposing them.” As a parliamentary orator, he was occasionally hesitating and perplexed; but, when warmed with his subject, he spoke with an animation and rapidity which appeared more striking from his former hesitation. His speeches were not crowded with flowers of rhetoric, or distinguished by brilliancy of diction; but were replete with sterling sense and sound argument. He was quick in reply, keen in repartee, and skilful in discerning the temper of the house. He wrote without effort or affectation; his public dispatches were manly and perspicuous, and his private letters easy and animated. Though of an ambitious spirit, he regarded money as a principal object, and power only as a secondary concern. He was an excellent husband, a most indulgent father, a kind master, a courteous neighbour, and one whose charities demonstrated that he possessed in abundance the milk of human kindness. Such is said to have been the character of lord Holland, which is here introduced as a prelude to some account of his more illustrious son. It may therefore suffice to add, that in 1756 he resigned the office of secretary at war to Mr. Pitt, and in the following year was appointed paymaster of the forces, which he retained until the commencement of the present reign; his conduct in this office was attended with some degree of obloquy; in one instance, at least, grossly overcharged. For having accumulated a considerable fortune by the perquisites of office, and the interest of money in hand, he was styled in one of the addresses of the city of London, “the defaulter of unaccounted millions.” On May 6, 1762, his lady was created baroness Holland; and on April 16, 1763, he himself was created a peer by the title of lord Holland, baron Holland, of Foxley, in the county of Wilts. In the latter part of his life he amused himself by building, at a vast expence, a fantastic villa at Kingsgate, near Margate, His lordship was also a lord of the privy-council, and clerk of the Pells, in Ireland, granted him for his own life and that of his two sons. Lord Holland died at Holland-house, near Kensington, July 1, 1774, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, leaving three sons, Stephen, his successor; Charles James, the subject of the next article; and Henry Edward, a general in the army. Stephen, second lord Holland, survived his father but a few months, dying Dec. 26, 1774, and was succeeded by Henry Richard, the present peer.

, eldest brother of the preceding, was born in 16'67, and admitted in 1680 at Westminster school, whence he was elected to Christ Church, Oxford, in. 1686. While a student there he wrote some good verses on the inauguration of king William and queen Mary, which were printed in the Oxford collection. In, the celebrated dispute between Bentley and Boyle, Mr. Freind was a warm partizan for the honour of his college, but was eventually more lucky with Bentley than his brother, Dr. John. A neice of our author’s was married to a son of Dr. Bentley, who, after that event, conceived a better opinion of the Christ Church men, and declared that “Freind had more good learning in him than ever he had imagined.” Mr. Freind proceeded M. A. June I, 1693, became second master of Westminster school in 1699, and accumulated the degrees of B. and D. D. July 7, 1709. In 1711 he published a sermon preached before the house of commons, Jan. 30, 1710-11, and in the same year he succeeded Duke, the poet, in the valuable living of Witney, in Oxfordshire; became head master of Westminster school, and is said either to have drawn up, or to have revised the preamble to the earl of Oxford’s patent of peerage. In March 1723, the day after his brother, Dr. John, was committed to the Tower, he caused much speculation in Westminster school and its vicinity, by giving for a theme, tf Frater, ne desere Fratrem.“In 1724 he published Cicero’s” Orator,“and in 1728 Mr. Bowyer, the celebrated printer, was indebted to him for the Westminster verses on the coronation of George II. In April 1729, Dr. Freind obtained a canonry of Windsor, which in 173l i he exchanged for a prebend of Westminster, and in 1733 he quitted Westminster school. In 1734 he was desirous of resigning Witney to his son (afterwards dean of Canterbury); but could not do it without the permission of bishop Hoadly, which he had little reason to expect. On application, however, to that prelate, through queen Caroline and lady Sundon, he received this laconic answer,” If Dr. Freind can ask it, I can grant it." Dr. Freind’s letters to lady Sundon are still existing, and prove that he had as little scruple in asking, as bishop Hoadly had in flattering a lady, who, by her influence with queen Caroline, became for a considerable time the sole arbitress of churchpreferments. In 1744 Dr. Freind resigned his stall at Westminster in favour of his son, and died August 9, 1751. By Jane his wife, one of the two daughters of Dr. Samuel Delangle, a prebendary of Westminster, he had two sons, Charles, who died in 1736, and William, his successor at Witney, and afterwards dean of Canterbury.

, an English divine, a native of Hereford, where he was born ki 1591, was educated at the school there, and became a student of Christ- church, Oxford, about 1607. After taking his degrees in arts, he entered into holy orders, and was noted for a quaint singularity in his manner of preaching. King James I. beingmuch pleased with a speech which he had delivered before him in the Scotch tone, when he was deputy-orator, gave him the reversion of the next canonry of Christ-church; into which he was installed, on the death of Dr. Thomas Thornton, in 1629; and taking his degrees in divinity the following year, he was made one of the chaplains in ordinary to king Charles I. In 1648 he was ejected from his canonry by the parliamentary visitors, and lived obscurely in Oxford, until the restoration, when he-was re-instated in his stall, and from that time devoted the profits of it to charitable uses, with some benefactions to his relations, and to Christ-church. He published several sermons, particularly a volume containing sixteen, Lond. 1659, 8vo. 2; “Specimen Oratorium,” Lond. 1653, containing some of his university orations. This was reprinted in 1657, and in 1662, with additional orations and letters. There were subsequent editions printed at Oxford in 1668 and 1675, &c. yet the book is very scarce. He died Dec. 20, 1670, and was buried in Christ-church cathedral, with an elegant Latin epitaph, written at the desire of his executors, by Dr. South, who succeeded him in his canonry.

As this step proved the ruin of Wolsey, in his distress he applied to his old servant the secretary, who on this occasion is said by the writer of his life in the Biog. Britannica, to have afforded an eminent proof of his gratitude, in soliciting his pardon; which was followed in three days by his restoration to his archbishopric, and 6000l. sent him, besides plate and furniture for his house and chapel. It is certain, however, that Gardiner did not interpose before Wolsey had supplicated him more than once in the most humble manner, to intercede for him, and it is equally certain that Gardiner did not risk much in applying to the king, who for some time entertained a considerable regard for the fallen Wolsey. Gardiner also, at the cardinal’s recommendation, in 1530, introduced the provost of Beverly to the king, who received him graciously, and shewed him that he was his good and gracious lord, and admitted and accepted him as his orator and scholar. These were matters of easy management. But the year had not expired, when the king’s service called the secretary to a task of another nature, which was to procure from the university of Cambridge their declaration in favour of his majesty’s cause, after Cranmer’s book should appear in support of it. In this most difficult point his old colleague Fox was joined with him; and they spared no pains, address, or artifice in accomplishing it. To make amends for such an unreserved compliance with the royal will, a door was presently opened in the church, through which, by one single step (the archdeaconry of Leicester, into which he was installed in the spring of 1531), Gardiner advanced to the rich see of Winchester, and was there consecrated the November following. Gardiner was not, at the time, apprized of the king’s design of conferring on him this rich bishopric; for Henry, in his caprice, would sometimes rate him soundly, and when he bestowed it on him said, “I have often squared with you, Gardiner, but I love you never the worse, as the bishopric I give you will convince you.” As bishop of Winchester he now assisted in the court when the sentence, declaring Katharine’s marriage null and void, was passed by Cranmer, May 22, 1533. The same year he went ambassador to the French king at Marseilles, to discover the designs of the pope and that monarch in their interview, of which Henry was very suspicious; and upon his return home, being called, as other bishops were, to acknowledge and defend the king’s supremacy, he readily complied, and published his defence for it, with this title, “De vera Obedientia.” His conduct was very uniform in this point, as well as in that of the divorce and the subsequent marriage, and he acquired great reputation by his writings in defence of them.

In the same year, Dr f Garth, detesting the behaviour of the apothecaries, as well as of some members of the faculty in this affair, resolved to expose them, which he accordingly executed, with peculiar spirit and vivacity, in his admirable poem entitled “The Dispensary.” The first edition came out in 1699, and it went through three impressions in a few months. This extraordinary encouragement induced him to make several improvements in it; and, in 1706, he published the sixth edition, with several descriptions and episodes never before printed . In 16y? he spoke the annual speech in Latin before the college, on St. Luke’s day; which being soon after published, left it doubtful, whether the poet or the orator was most to be admired. In his poem he exposed, in good satire, the false and mean-spirited brethren of the faculty. In the oration, he ridiculed the multifarious classes of the quacks, with spirit, and not without humour.

His character was drawn up by the late Dr. Brocklesby for the Gentleman’s Magazine, and as far as respects his amiable disposition, was confirmed to us by Dr. VVarton, who knew him well. “Through the whole of his life Mr. Glover was by all good men revered, by the wise esteemed, by the great sometimes caressed and even flattered, and now his death is sincerely lamented by all who had the happiness to contemplate the integrity of his character. Mr. Glover, for upwards of 50 years past through every vicissitude of fortune, exhibited the most exemplary simplicity of manners; having early attained that perfect equanimity, which philosophy often recommends in the closet, but which in experience is too seldom exercised by other men in the test of trial. In Mr. Glover were united a wide compass of accurate information in all mercantile concerns, with high intellectual powers of mind, joined to a copious flow of eloquence as an orator in the house of commons. Since Milton he was second to none of our English poets, in his discriminating judicious acquaintance with all ancient as well as modern literature witness his Leon i das, Medea, Boadicea, and London for, having formed his own character upon the best models of the Greek writers, he lived as if he had been bred a disciple of Socrates, or companion of Aristides. Hence his political turn of mind, hence his unwarped affection and active zeal for the rights and liberties of his country. Hence his heartfelt exultation whenever he had to paint the impious designs of tyrants in ancient times frustrated, or in modern defeated in their nefarious purposes to extirpate liberty, or to trample on the unalienable rights of man, however remote in time or space from his immediate presence. In a few words, for the extent of his various erudition, for his unalloyed patriotism, and for his daily exercise and constant practice of Xenophou’s philosophy, in his private as well as in public life, Mr. Glover has left none his equal in the city, and some time, it is feared, may elapse before such another citizen shall arise, with eloquence, with character, and with poetry, like his, to assert their rights, or to vindicate with equal powers the just claims of freeborn men. Suffice this testimony at present, as the wellearned meed of this truly virtuous man, whose conduct was carefully marked, and narrowly watched by the writer of the foregoing hasty sketch, for his extraordinary qualities during the long period in human life of upwards of 40 years and now it is spontaneously offered as a voluntary tribute, unsolicited and unpurchased but as it appears justly due to the memory of so excellent a poet, statesman, and true philosopher, in life and death the same.”

, an eminent classical teacher, the son of John Goad, of Bishopsgate- street, was born there Feb. 15, 1615. He was educated at Merchant Taylors’ school, and elected thence a scholar of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1632. He afterwards received his master’s degree, became fellow of his college, and took orders. In 1643 he was made vicar of St. Giles’s, Oxford, and continued to perform his parochial duties, although at the risk of his life, during the siege of the city by the parliamentary forces. In June 1646 he was presented by the university to the vicarage of Yarnton, and the year following was created B. D. When the loyalists were turned out by the parliamentary commissioners, Mr. Goad shared their fate; and although Dr. Cheyuel, who was one of the parliamentary visitors, gave him an invitation to return to his college, he refused it upon the terms offered. Yet he appears to have been so far connived at, as to be able to keep his living at Yarnton until the restoration. He also taught at Tunbridge school until July 1661, when he was made head master of Merchant Taylors’ school. Over this seminary he presided for nearly twenty years, with great success and approbation, and trained for the college many youths who did honour to their teacher and to their country; but in 1681 a suspicion was entertained that he inclined towards popery; and it was said that the comment whicli he made on the Church Catechism savoured strongly of popish tenets. Some particular passages having been selected from it, and laid before the grand jury of London, they on March 4 of the above year, presented a complaint to the Merchant Taylors’ company, respecting the catechism taught in their school. After he had been heard in his own defence, it was decided that he was “popishly and erroneously affected,” and immediately was discharged from his office; but such was their sense of his past services, that they voted him a gratuity of 70l. It soon appeared that the court of the company had not been deceived in their opinion of his principles. After being dismissed, he taught a school in Piccadilly, and in 1686, the reign of James II. openly professed himself a Roman catholic which, Wood says, he had long been covertly. He died Oct. 28, 1689, and was buried in the church of Great St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate-street, his memory being honoured by various elegies. He published, besides some single sermons, 1. “Genealogicon Latin um,” a small dictionary for the use of Merchant Taylors’ school, 8vo, 1676, second edit. 2. “Declamation, whether Monarchy be the best form of government” printed at the end of Richards’s “English Orator,” 1680, 8vo. 3. “Astro-Meteorologica, or aphorisms and discourses of the Bodies Celestial, their natures and influences, &c.” 1686, fol. This gained him great reputation. The subject of it is a kind of astrology, founded, for the most part, on reason and experiment, as will appear by comparing it with Boyle’s “History of the Air,” and Dr. Mead’s book * c De Imperio Solis etJLuna.“4.” Autodidactica, or a practical vocabulary, &c.“1690, 8vo. After his death was published” Astro-meteorologia sana, &c." 1690, 4to.

, a native of Leontium, in Sicity, who flourished in the fifth century B. C. was a celebrated orator of the school of Empedocles. He was deputed in the year 427, by his fellow-citizens, to request succour of the Athenians against the people of Syracuse, whom he so charmed with his eloquence that he easily obtained what he required. He also made a display of his eloquence at the Olympic and Pythian games, and with so much success, that a statue of gold was erected to him at Delphi, and money was coined with his name upon it. In the latter part of his life he established himself at Athens, and lived till he had attained the age of one hundred and five years. He is reputed, according to Quintilian, to be the author and inventor of extemporaneous speaking, in which art he exercised his disciples. Hermogenes has preserved a fragment of his, from which we may infer that his manner was quaint and artificial, full of antithesis and pointed expression.

Thus advantageously born, he proved a child of pregnant parts; by which, and the advantage of a domestic institution under his parents, he soon outstrip! his contemporaries in learning. Nature had formed him of a grave and serious temper, so that his studies were not obstructed by the little sports and pleasures of youth. After some time, he travelled abroad for his farther improvement; in which rout, the first step he took was to Crcsarea, and having rifled the learning of that university, he travelled to Caesarea Philippi in Palestine, where some of the most celebrated masters of that age resided, and where Eusebius then sat bishop. Here he studied under the famous orator Thespasias, and had among other fellow-pupils, Euzo'ius, afterwards

, was the younger brother of St. Basil, and had an equal care taken of his education, being brought up in all the polite and fashionable modes of learning; but, applying himself particularly to rhetoric, he valued himself more upon being accounted an orator than a Christian. On the admonition of his friend Gregory Nazianzen he quitted those studies; and, betaking himself to solitude and a monastic discipline, he turned his attention wholly to the holy scriptures, and the controversies of the age; so that he became as eminent in the knowledge of these as he had before been in the course of more pleasant studies. Thus qualified for the highest dignity in the church, he was placed in the see of Nyssa, a city on the borders of Cappadocia. The exact time of his promotion is not known, though it is certain he was bishop in the year 371. He proved in this station a stout champion for the Nicene faith, and so vigorously opposed the Arian party, that he was soon after banished by the emperor Valens; and, in a synod held at Nyssa by the bishop of Pontus and Galatia, was deposed, and met with very hard usage. He was hurried from place to place, heavily fined, and exposed to the rage and petulance of the populace, which fell heavier upon him, as he was both unused to trouble, and unapt to bear it. In this condition he remained for seven or eight years, during which, however, he went about countermining the stratagems of the Arians, and strengthening those in the orthodox faith; and in the council of Antioch in the year 378, he was, among others, delegated to visit the eastern churches lately harassed by the Arian persecution.

, son of the preceding, and one of the greatest geniuses that Germany has produced, was born September 29, 1649, at Fraustadt. Having acquired great skill in the languages and belles lettres, he was appointed professor of rhetoric at Breslau, afterwards principal of Magdalen college in that city, and, at length, librarian. Gryphins was a good orator and historian, a man of extensive learning, and an excellent German poet, which language he considerably improved. He was also a contributor to the Leipsic Journal. He died March 6, 1706, having just before his death heard a beautiful poem of his own writing, which had been set to music, performed in his chamber. The piece is said to have been admirably expressive of the consolations derived from our Saviour’s death to a dying man. His works arc, “A History of. the Orders of Knighthood,” in German, 1709, 8vo; “Poems,” in German among them, “Pastorals,” 8vo; “The German Language formed by degrees, or, a treatise on the origin and progress of it,” 8vo, in German, and a valuable posthumous work, entitled “Apparatus, s?ive Dissertatio Isagogica de Scriptoribus Historiam Seculi XVII illustrantibus,” Leipsic, 1710, 8vo.

, an eminent Swiss divine, and one of the first reformers, was born at Zurich in 1529. In his youth he attained an accurate knowledge of Greek and Latin, and acquired much fame as an orator and Latin poet. He married the daughter of Zuinglius, and being admitted into orders, preached at Zurich from 1542 to 1575, when he was chosen to succeed Bullinger, as first minister of the protestant church there. His writings also, which consisted of homilies, or sermons on the prophets, evangelists, and apostles, procured him great fame both at home and abroad, and were long regarded as standard books among the protestant churches. He died Nov. 25, 1586. In the early part of queen Elizabeth’s reign we find him corresponding with the English divines who had been exiles in the preceding reign, and brought over an attachment to the simple forms of the Genevan church, which Elizabeth wished to discourage. His works, as enumerated by Verheiden, consist of Latin poems, commentaries on various books of the Scripture, works on grammar and history, and some translations. His son, of the same names, spent some years in Merton college, Oxford, where he took his degree of M. A. in 1573, and returning to Zurich, became minister of St. Peter’s church there. Wood attributes several Latin poems to him, some of which we suspect were the production of his father: but this young man died in 1577, when oniy twenty five years of age.

, an eminent scholar, and one of the revivers of the learned languages in England, was descended from a good family in Buckinghamshire, and born in 1516. He was educated at Eton school, under Dr. Richard Cox, afterwards bishop of Ely, and was thence elected to King’s college, in Cambridge; where he greatly distinguished himself by his parts and learning, and particularly by writing Latin in an elegant, but, as Mr. Warton thinks, not a very pure style. He studied also the civil law, of which he became doctor; and read public lectures in it in 1547, and the two years following, and was so much approved, that upon a vacancy in the professor’s chair in 1550, the university employed the celebrated Ascham to write to king Edward VI. in his favour. He was accordingly appointed professor, and was also for some time professor of rhetoric and orator of the university. During king Edward’s reign, he was one of the most illustrious promoters of the reformation; and therefore, upon the deprivation of Gardiner, was thought a proper person to succeed him in the mastership of Trinity-hall. In September 1552, through the earnest recommendation of the court, though not qualified according to the statutes, he was chosen president of Magdalen college in Oxford; but, in October 1553, upon the accession of queen Mary, he quitted the president’s place for fear of being expelled, or perhaps worse used, at Gardiner’s visitation of the said college. He is supposed to have lain concealed in England all this reign; but, on the accession of Elizabeth, was ordered by the privy council to repair to her majesty at Hatfield in Hertfordshire, and soon after was constituted by her one of the masters of the court of requests. Archbishop Parker also made him judge of his prerogative-­court. In the royal visitation of the university of Cambridge, performed in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, he was one of her majesty’s commissioners, as appears by the speech he then made, printed among his works. In 1566 he was one of the three agents sent to Bruges to restore commerce between England and the Netherlands upon the ancient terms. He died Jan. 21, 1571-2, and was buried in Christ Church, London, where a monument was erected to his memory, but was destroyed in the great fire of London. He was engaged, with sir John Cheke, in turning into Latin and drawing up that useful code of ecclesiastical law, published in 1571, by the learned John Fox, under this title, “Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum,” in 4to. He published, in 1563, a letter, or answer to an epistle, directed to queen Elizabeth, by Jerom Osorio, bishop of Silva in Portugal, and entitled “Admonitio ad Elizabetham reginam Angliæ,” in which the English nation, and the reformation of the church, were treated in a scurrilous manner. His other works were collected and published in 1567, 4to, under the title of “Lucubrationes.” This collection contains ten Latin orations, fourteen letters, besides the above-mentioned to Osorio; and also poems. Several of his original letters are in the Harleian collection; and his poems, “Poemata,” containing a great number of metrical epitaphs, were separately published with his life in 1576. Many of our writers speak in high terms of Haddon, and not without reason; for, through, every part of his writings, his piety appears equal to his learning. When queen Elizabeth was asked whether she preferred him or Buchanan? she replied, “Buchananum omnibus antepono, Haddonum nemini postpono.”

, a learned English divine, was the son of a merchant in Exeter, and born there in 1579. After a proper education in classical literature, he was admitted of St. Alban’s-hall, in Oxford, in 1595, where he became so noted a disputant and orator, that he was unanimously elected fellow of Exeter college at two years standing. He then studied philosophy and divinity, and having received holy orders, travelled abroad. In 1610 he was admitted to the reading of the sentences, and in 1611 took his degrees in divinity. He was afterwards made chaplain to prince Charles, and archdeacon of Surrey, in 1616; but never rose to any higher dignity, on account of the zealous opposition he made to the match of the infanta of Spain with the prince his master. Wood relates the story thus: After Hakewill had written a small tract against that match, not without reflecting on the Spaniard, he caused it to be transcribed in a fair hand, and then presented it to the prince. The prince perused it, and shewed it to the king; who, being highly offended at it, caused the author to be imprisoned, in August 1621; soon after which, being released, he was dismissed from his attendance on the prince. He was afterwards elected rector of Exeter college, but resided very little there, although he proved a liberal benefactor to the college; for, the civil war breaking out, he retired to his rectory of Heanton near Barnstaple in Devonshire, and there continued to the time of his death in 1649. He wrote several things, enumerated by Wood; but his principal work, and that for which he is most known, is “An Apology or Declaration of the Power and Providence of God in the Government of the World, proving that it doth not decay, &c.” in four books, 1627. To which were added two more in the third edition, 1635, in folio.

A few days after the breaking of this treaty, a canonry of Christ Church in Oxford becoming vacant, the king bestowed it upon him about March 1645; and the university chose him their public orator. His majesty also, coming to reside in that city, made him one of his chaplains in ordinary: notwithstanding all which employments, he did not remit from his studies, or cease to publish books, principally contrived to do service in the times when they were written. When Oxford surrendered, his attendance as cbaplain was superseded; but when the king came into the power of the army, he was permitted to attend him again, in his several confinements and removes of Woburn, Caversham, Hampton-court, and the Isle of Wight: at which last place he continued till Christmas, 1647, when all his majesty’s servants were removed from him. He then returned again to Oxford, where he was chosen sub-dean of Christ Church in which office he continued till March 30, 1648, and was then forcibly turned out of it by the parliamentary visitors. The accusations against him were, his refusing to submit to the visitors’ power; his being concerned in drawing up the reasons which were presented to the convocation against the authority of that visitation; and his refusing to publish the visitors’ orders for the expulsion of several of the members of Christ Church. Instead, however, of being commanded immediately to quit Oxford, as others were, a committee of parliament voted him and Dr. Sheldon to be prisoners in that place, where they continued in restraint for about ten weeks. During this confinement he began his “Paraphrase and Annotations on the New Testament;” the ground-work of which is said to be this. Having written in Latin two large volumes of the way of interpreting the New Testament, with inference to the customs of the Jews, and of the first heretics in the Christian church, and also of the heathens, especially in the Grecian games and, above all, of the importance of the Hellenistical dialect he began to consider, that it might be more useful to the English render, to write in our vulgar language, and set every observation in its natural order, according to the direction of the text. And having some years before collated several Greek copies of the New Testament, and observed the variation of our English from the original, and made an entire translation of the whole for his own private use, he cast his work into that form in which it now appears. It came out first in 1653; in 1656, with additions and alterations; and, in 1698, Le Clerc put out a Latin translation of it, viz. of the “Paraphrase and Annotations,” with the text of the Vulgate, in which he has intermixed many of his own animadversions, explained those points which Dr. Hammond had but slightly touched, and corrected many of his mistakes.

Dr. Hammond was a very handsome man, well-made, and of a strong and vigorous constitution; of a clear and florid complexion, his eye remarkably quick and sprightly, and in his countenance there was a mixture of sweetness and dignity. He had a free, graceful, and commanding eloquenee. King Charles I. said of him, that he was the most natural orator he ever heard. He had not, however, a technical memory, and used to complain that it was harder for him to get ope sermon by heart than to pen twenty. He was of a very kind, social, benevolent, and friendly disposition; extremely liberal to the poor, to whom he rendered his bounty more valuable by his manner of bestowing it. “Misery and want,' 7 says his excellent biographer,” wherever Dr. Hammond met with them, sufficiently endeared the object. His alms were as exuberant as his love; and in calamities, to the exigence he never was a stranger, whatever he might be to the man that suffered.“Among other evidences which Hammond gave of his benevolence, Dr. Fell informs us, that, when he saw a man honest and industrious, he would trust him with a sum, and let him pay it again at such times and in such proportions as he found himself able; all this accompanied by an inquiry into his condition, and advice as to the better disposal of the money, closing his discourse with prayer, and dismissing the object of his benevolence with the utmost kindness. To persons of rank and fortune his advice was, to” treat their poor neighbours with such a cheerfulness, that they may be glad to have met with them."

, an English civilian, chancellor of the dioceses of Durham, Hereford, and Llandaff, and commissary of Essex, Herts, and Surrey, was the son of Dr. John Harris, bishop of Llandaff, who died in 1738. The time of his son’s birth we have not been able to ascertain. He was, however, a member of Oriel college, Oxford, where he took his degree of bachelor of laws in May 1745, and that of doctor in the same faculty in May 1750, in which last year he was admitted into the college of advocates. Here he proved himself an eminent pleader, although not a masterly orator, and enriched himself by very extensive practice. He died at his house in Doctors’ Commons, April 19, 1796, leaving his very extensive property mostly to charitable uses. Among the very munificent items in his will, were 40,000l. to St. George’s hospital; 20,000l. to Hetherington’s charity for the blind; 15,000l. to the Westminster lying-in hospital, and 5000l. to the Hereford infirmary. He also was in his life-time a benefactor to the funds of the society of advocates. In 1752 he published a pamphlet, entitled “Observations upon the English Language, in a letter to a friend,” 8vo, relating to the common mistakes in spelling, pronunciation, and accent. This was anonymous; but he afterwards published with his name, “D. Justiniani Institutionum, Libri quatuor; and a translation of them into English, with notes,” 1756, 4to, a work which did him great credit, and was thought peculiarly adapted for the improvement of young law students. A second edition appeared in 176 1.

Dr. Maty expresses his wonder, that lord Chesterfield should not have chosen a tutor who understood a little better the external decorations which his lordship prized so highly. “Harte,” says this biographer, “had none of the amiable connecting qualifications, which the earl wished in his son.” “It was impossible he should succeed in finishing the polish of his education in the manner lord Chesterfield wished; and it is a matter of astonishment that the earl should not have perceived how much the tutor’s example must have defeated his precepts. The three principal articles he recommended to his son, were his appearance, his elocution, and his style. Mr. Harte, long accustomed to a college life, was too aukward both in his person and address to be able to familiarize the graces with his young pupil. An unhappy impediment in his speech, joined to his total want of ear, rendered him equally unfit to perceive as to correct any defects of pronunciation, a careful attention to which was so strongly recommended in all lord Chesterfield’s letters, as absolutely necessary for an orator.”

In the following year, 1652, Harvey had the satisfaction of seeing his merits acknowledged by his brethren in an unusual and most honourable manner: by a vote of the college his bust in marble was placed in their hall, with a suitable inscription recording his discoveries. He returned this compliment, by presenting to the college, at a splendid entertainment to which he invited the members, an elegantly furnished convocation-room, and a museum filled with choice books and chirurgical instruments, which he had built, at his own expence, in their garden. On the resignation of Dr Prujeau, in 1654, Harvey was unanimously nominated to the presidency, but he declined the offer on account of his age and infirmities. He still, however, frequented the meetings of the college; and his attachment to that body was shewn more conspicuously in 1656, when, at the first anniversary feast instituted by himself, he gave up his paternal estate of fifty-six pounds per annum in perpetuity, for their use. The particular purposes of this donation were, the institution of an annual feast, at which a Latin oration should be spoken in commemoration of the benefactors of the college, a gratuity for the orator, and a provision for the keeper of his library and museum. His old age was afflicted with infirmities, especially with most excruciating attacks of the gout; but he lived to complete his eighty-eighth year, acCOrding to his epitaph, and expired on the 3d of June 1658, in great tranquillity and self-possession. He was buried in the chapel of Hampstead, belonging to the church of Great Samfurd in Essex, where there is a monument erected over his grave with a Latin inscription.

, a very learned man, born at the Hague, was a fine poet and orator; and to be compared, says Gronovius, in his “Orat. funeb. J. Golii,” with the Roman Atticus for his probity, tranquillity of life, and absolute disregard of honours and public employments. He went to Rome, and spent six years in the palace of cardinal Cesi. He wrote there' a panegyric on pope Clement VIII. which was so graciously received, that he was offered the post of librarian to the Vatican, or a very good benefice; and preferring the latter, was made a canon in the cathedral at Antwerp. Lipsius had a great esteem for him, as appears from his letters. He was Grotius’s friend also, and published verses to congratulate him on his deliverance from confinement. He was uncle by the mother’s side to James Golius, the learned professor at Leyden, who gained so vast a reputation by his profound knowledge in the Oriental languages: but Golius, who was a zealous protestant, could never forgive his having converted his brother Peter to popery. Hemelar applied himself much more to the study of polite literature and to the science of medals, than to theology. “He published,” says Gronovius, " extremely useful commentaries upon the medals of the Roman emperors, from the time of Julius Caesar down to Justinian, taken from the cabinets of Charles Arschot and Nicholas Rocoxius; wherein he concisely and accurately explains by marks, figures, &c. whatever is exquisite, elegant, and suitable or agreeable to the history of those times, and the genius of the monarchs, whether the medals in question be of gold, silver, or brass, whether cast or struck in that immortal city. It is a kind of storehouse of medals; and nevertheless in this work, from which any other person would have expected prodigious reputation, our author has been so modest as to conceal his name.' 7 This work of Hemelar’s, which is in Latin, is not easily to be met with, yet it has been twice printed iirst at Antwerp, in 1615, at the en.I of a work of James De Bie and secondly, in 1627, 4to which Clement has described as a very rare edition Bayle mentions a third edition of 1654, folio, but the work which he mistakes for a third edition, was only a collection of engravings of Roman coins described by Gevartius, in which are some from Hemelar’s work. The other works of this canon are some Latin poems and orations. He died in 1640. He is sometimes called Hamelar.

, better known by the appellation of “Orator Henley,” has furnished the world with memorials of himself, in a work entitled “Oratory Transactions,” which are in some respects worth preserving. He was born Tit. Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, Aug. 3, 1692. His father, the rev. Simon Henley, and his grandfather by his mother’s side (John Dowel, M. A.) were both vicars of that parish. His grandfather by his father’s side, John Henley, M. A. was likewise a clergyman, rector of Salmonby and Thetford in Lincolnshire. % He was educated among the dissenters, and conformed at the restoration. Henley was bred up first in the free-school of Melton, under Mr. Daffy, a diligent and expert grammarian. From this school he was removed to that of Okeham in Rutland, under Mr. Wright, eminent for his knowledge of the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew languages. About 1709 he entered of St. John’s-college, Cambridge; where, on his examination by Dr. Gower then master, Dr. Lambert, Dr. Edmundson, and others, he was, he tells us, particularly approved. While an undergraduate at St. John’s, he wrote a letter to the “Spectator,” dated from that college, Feb. 3, 1712, signed Peter de Quir, abounding with quaintness and local wit. He began here to be very soon uneasy; he was more inclined to dispute than to assent to any points of doctrine, and already fancied himself able to reform the whole system of academical education.

Orator Henley is a principal figure in two very humorous plates of Hogarth; in one of which he is “christening a child;” in the other, called “The Oratory,” he is represented on a scaffold, a monkey (over whom is written Amen) by his side a box of pills, and “The Hyp Doctor,” lying beside him. Over his head “The Oratory Inveniam viam, aut faciam.” Over the door, “Ingredere ut proficias.” A parson receiving the money for admission. Under him, “The Treasury.” A butcher stands as porter. On the left hand, Modesty in a cloud; Folly in a coach; and a gibbet prepared for Merit; people laughing. One marked “The Scout,” introducing a puritan divine.

, an eminent and exemplary divine, younger brother to the preceding, was born April 3, 1593, at Montgomery castle. His father died when he was very young; and until the age of twelve, he was educated under private tutors in his mother’s house. He was then put under the care of Dr. Neale, dean of Westminster, and afterwards archbishop of York, who placed him at Westminster-school. At the age of fifteen, being then a king’s scholar, he was elerted to Trinity college, Cambridge, and went thither about 1608, during the mastership of that great benefactor to the college, Dr. Nevil, who, at his mother’s request, took particular notice of him. At college he was assiduous in his studies, and virtuous in his conduct. Here he took his bachelor’s degree in 1612, and that of master in 1616, before which he had obtained a fellowship. During his studies, his principal relaxation was music, for which he had a good taste, and in which, as Walton says, “he became a great master.” At this time, however, he betrayed a little of the vanity of youth and birth, by affecting great finery of dress, and maintaining a reserved behaviour towards his inferiors. In 1619, he was chosen university orator, which office he held for eight years, much to the satisfaction of his hearers, and particularly of those great personages whom he had occasionally to address. The terms of flattery he appears to have known how to use with great profusion; and in more than one instance, pleased king James very much with his liberal offerings of this kind. He gave no less satisfaction to his majesty also, by his apt and ingenious replies to Andrew Melville, a Scotch divine, at the Hampton-court conference. His talents recommended him to the notice of Dr. Andrews, bishop of Winchester, and of the great lord Bacon, who is said to have entertained such a high opinion of Mr. Herbert, as to consult him in his writings, before they went to press, and dedicated to him his translation of some ef the Psalms into English verse, as the best judge of divine poetry. Nor was bishop Andrews less enraptured with his character; for Herbert, having, in consequence of a dispute between them on predestination and sanctity of life, written a letter to the bishop on the subject in Greek, Andrews used to show it to many scholars, and always carried it about him. Sir Henry Wotton and Dr. Donne may also be added to the number of those eminent men of his time whose friendship he shared.

All this sufficiently shews that his attainments were of no common kind; but unfortunately the praises he received, and the favour into which he was admitted, inspired him with ambition to rise at court. His predecessors in the office of public orator, sir Robert Nanton and sir Francis Nethersole, had both risen to places of distinction in the state; and he being at this time a favourite with the king, and “not meanly valued and loved by the most eminent and most powerful of the court nobility,” began to cherish hopes of similar success. With this view he frequently left Cambridge to attend the king, wheresoever the court was and the king having given him a sinecure worth about 120l. a year, he devoted himself yet more to court-attendance, and seldom visited Cambridge, unless the king was there. But, as Walton says, “God, in whom there is an unseen chain of causes,” terminated his hopes of rising at court, by the deaths of the duke of Richmond and the marquis of Hamilton, his chief patrons, and about the same time, by that of king James.

He published, 1. “Oratio qua auspicatissimum sereniss. princ. Caroli reditnm ex Hispaniis celebravit G. H. acad. Cantab. Orator,” 1623. 2. A translation of Coniaro “Oil Temperance.” 3. “Herbert’s Remains, &c.” Lond. 1652, 12mo. In this volume is his “Priest to the Temple, or the Country Parson’s character and rule of Holy Life,” a series of short chapters on the duties and character of a parish priest, which has been separately and very recently printed, and always much admired. 4. “The Temple, Sacred Poems and private ejaculations,” Cambridge, 1633, 12mo, often reprinted. As a poet Mr. Herbert ranks with Donne, Quarles, and Crashaw; but, as some critics have asserted, is inferior to these. He was, however, the most popular poet of his day, for, according to Walton, 10,Ooo copies of this work were sold, and we know that there have been editions since Walton’s time. At the end of this volume is a collection of poems entitled “The Synagogue,” which Granger very improperly attributes to Crashaw. Mr. Zouch has endeavoured to prove that these pieces were written by Mr. Christopher Hervey. There are some Latin poems by Herbert in the “Ecclesiastes Solomonis,” published by Dr. Duport, in the “Epicedium Cantabrigiense,” 1612, and the “Lachrymae Cantabrigienses,” 1619; and a series of his letters are in the orator’s book at Cambridge.

, descended from a considerable family in Gloucestershire, was born at Stoke Abbat, or South Stoke, near Henley in Oxfordshire, in 1589. After being educated at Reading school, he was entered of St. John’s college, Oxford, in 1606, and acquired very high reputation, both as an orator and disputant. Some time after taking his bachelor’s degree, he wrote a life of sir Thomas White, the founder of the college, in Latin verse, which is still preserved in ms. in the college. Bound up with it, is an account of the mock ceremonies on choosing a lord of misrule, an ancient Christmas frolic in that and other colleges. In 1611 he was elected probationer fellow of Merton college, and taking his Master’s degree, went into holy orders, and had two small cures bestowed on him by the college.

In consequence of this, Dr. Hinchliffe was appointed tutor and domestic chaplain to the duke of Devonshire, with whom he continued at Devonshire-house till his grace went abroad; and, by the joint interest of his two noble patrons he was presented to the vicarage of Greenwich, in 1766. About this time, Miss Elizabeth, the sister of his pupil Mr. Crewe, a young lady about twenty-one years of age, was courted by an officer of the guards, who not being favoured with the approbation of Mr. Crewe, this latter gentleman applied to Dr. Hinchliffe, requesting him to dissuade his sister from encouraging the addresses of her suitor. This he did so effectually, that the lady not only gratified her brother’s wishes, but her own, by giving both her heart and hand to the doctor. Mr. Crewe acquiesced immediately in his sister’s choice, encreasing her fortune from five thousand^ the sum originally bequeathed to her, to fifteen thousand pounds; but at the same time withdrawing the three hundred per annum before mentioned. Dr. Hinchliffe, it is said, was offered the tuition of the prince of Wales, which important trust he declined, from his predilection, as it is supposed, to what were called Whig principles. On the death of Dr. Smith, in 1768, his lordship was elected, through the recommendation of the duke of Grafton, master of Trinity college, Cambridge; and scarce a year had elapsed, when he was raised to the bishopric of Peterborough on the death of Dr. Lamb, in. 1769, by the interest of the duke of Grafton, then prime minister. It is probable his lordship might have obtained other preferment, had he not uniformly joined the party in parliament who opposed the principle and conduct of the American war. The only other change he experienced was that of being appointed dean of Durham, by which he was removed from the mastership of Trinity college. He died at his palace at Peterborough Jan. 11, 1794, after a long illness, which terminated in a paralytic stroke. His lordship, although a man of ^considerable learning, published three sermons, preached on public occasions. He was a graceful orator in parliament, and much admired in the pulpit. Mr. Jones, in his Life of bishop Home, says that “he spake with the accent of a man of sense (such as he really was in a superior degree), but it was remarkable, and, to those who did not know the cause, mysterious, that there was not a corner of the church, in which he could not be heard distinctly.” The reason Mr. Jones assigns, was, that he made it an invariable rule, “to do justice to every consonant, knovxing that the vowels will be sure to speak for themselves. And thus he became the surest and clearest of speakers: his elocution was perfect, and never disappointed his audience.” Two years after his death, a volume of bishop Hinchliffe’s “Sermons” were published, but, probably from a want of judgment in the selection, did not answer the expectations of those who had been accustomed to admire him in the pulpit.

With no other stock of learning than what he had acquired from this Mr. Wingate, he was, about 1712, bound by indenture to attend the office of a writer of the signet in Edinburgh, as preparatory to the profession of a writer or solicitor before the supreme court; but circumstances inspired him with the ambition of becoming an advocate; and now being sensible of his defective education, he resumed the study of the Greek and Latin languages, to which he added French and Italian, and likewise applied himself to the study of mathematics, natural philosophy, logic, ethics, and metaphysics. These pursuits, which he followed at the same time with the study of the law, afforded, independently of their own value, a most agreeable variety of employment to his active mind. His attention appears to have been much turned to metaphysical investigation, for which he all his life entertained a strong predilection. About 1723, he carried on a correspondence with the celebrated Andrew Baxter, and Dr. Clarke, upon subjects of that kind. In January 1724, he was called to the bar, at a time when bath the bench and bar were filled by men of uncommon eminence. As he did not possess in any great degree the powers of an orator, he engaged for some time but a moderate share of practice as a barrister. In 1728, he published a folio volume of “Remarkable Decisions of the Court of Session,” executed with so much judgment, that he began to be regarded as a young man of talents, who had his profession at heart, and would spare no pains to acquit himself, with honour, in the most intricate causes in which he might be employed. His practice was quickly increased; and after 1732, when he published a small volume, entitled “Essays upon several subjects in Law,” he was justly considered as a profound and scientific lawyer. These essays afford an excellent example of the mode of reasoning which he afterwards pursued in most of his jurisprudential writings, and, in the opinion of his biographer, furnish an useful model for that species of investigation.

, a Roman orator, was the contemporary and rival of Cicero, and so far his senior, that he was an established pleader some time before the appearance of the latter. He pleaded his first cause at the age of nineteen, in the consulship of L. Licinius Crassus, and Q. Mutius Scevola, ninety-four years before the Christian aera, Cicero being then in his twelfth year. This early effort was crowned with great success, and he continued throughout his life a very favourite orator. His enemies, however, represented his action as extravagant, and gave him the name of Hortensia, from a celebrated dancer of that time. He proceeded also in the line of public honours, was military tribune, praetor, and in the year 68 B. C. consul, together with Q. Caecilius Metellus. He was an eminent member of the college of augurs, and was the person who elected Cicero into that body, being sworn to present a man of proper dignity. By him also Cicero was there inaugurated, for which reason, says that author, “it was my duty to regard him as a parent.” He died in the year 49 B. C.“; and Cicero, to whom the news of that event was brought when he was at Rhodes, in his return from Ciiicia, has left a most eloquent eulogy and lamentation upon him, in the opening of his celebrated treatise on orators entitled Brutus.” I considered him,“says that writer,” not, as many supposed, in the light of an adversary, or one who robbed me of any praise, but as a companion and sharer in my glorious labour. It was much more honourable to have such an opponent, than to stand unrivalled; more especially as neither his career was impeded by me, nor mine by him, but each, on the contrary, was always ready to assist the other by communication, advice, and kindness." If, however, Cicero was sincere in his attachment, it was surmised that Hortensius was not, and this is even insinuated in one of the epistles of Cicero. Hortensius amassed great wealth, but lived at the same time in a splendid and liberal manner; and it is said that at his death his cellars were found stocked with 10,000 hogsheads of wine. His orations have all perished; but it was the opinion of Quintillian, that they did not in perusal answer to the fame he obtained by speaking them. Hortensius must have been si^ty-four at the time of his death.

and certainly no person ever had a better right to assume that sublime device. This excellent magistrate, and truly, great man, died March 13, 1573, at the age of 68 years. “L' Hospital,” says Brantome, “was the greatest, worthiest, and most learned chancellor, that was ever known in France. His large white beard, pale countenance, austere manner, made all who saw him think they beheld a true portrait of St. Jerome, and he was called St. Jerome by the courtiers. All orders of men feared him; particularly the members of the courts of justice; and, when he examined them on their lives, their discharge of their duties, their capacities, or their knowledge, and particularly when he examined candidates for offices, and found them deficient, he made them feel it. He was profoundly vesrsed in polite learning, very eloquent, and an excellent pbdt^ His severity was never ill-naturec! he made due allowance” for the imperfections of human nature was always equtil ' and always firm. After his death his Vety enemies acknowledged that he was the greatest magistrate whom France had known, and that they did not “expect to see such another.” There are extant by him, 1. “Latin Poems,” Their unpretending simplicity is their greatest merit; but they shew such real dignity of character, they breathe so pure a spirit of virtue, and are full of such excellent sentiments of public and private worth, that they will always be read with pleasure. 2. “Speeches delivered in the meeting of the States at Orleans.” As an orator he shines much less than as a poet. 3. “Memoirs, containing Treaties of Peace,” &c. &c. It is said that he had also projected a history of his own time in Latin, but this he did not execute. The best edition of his poems is that of Amsterdam, 1732, 8vo. He left only one child, a daughter, married to Robert Hurault, whose children added the name of l‘Hospital to that of their father; hut the male line of this family also was extinct in 1706. Nevertheless, the memory of the chancellor has received the highest honours within a few years of the present time. In 1777, Louis XVI. erected a statue of white marble to him, and in the same year he was proposed by the French academy for the subject of an eloge. M. Guibert and the abbe Remi contended for the prize. It was adjudged to the latter, who did not, however, print his work; M. Guibert was less prudent, but his eloge gave little satisfaction. The celebrated Condorcet afterwards entered the lists, but with equal want of success. Such fastidiousness of public opinion showed the high veneration entertained for the character of L’ Hospital. In 1807, M. Bernardi published his “Essai sur la Vie, les Ecrits, et les Loix de Michel de L'Hospital,” in one vol. 8vo, a work written with taste and judgment; from these and other documents, Charles Butler, esq. has lately published an elegant “Essay on the Life” of L'Hospital, principally with a view to exhibit him as a friend to toleration.

, a celebrated French preacher, was born in 1640, and was contemporary with Bourdaloue, whom, indeed, he could not rival, but was skilful enough to please; being esteemed by him one of the first preachers of the time. He was a priest of the congregation of the Oratory, and no less remarkable for his gentle piety and profound humility, than for his eloquence. He excelled consequently rather in the touching style of the sacred, than the vivid manner of the temporal orator. He was used to say, that his brother Massillon was fit to preach to the masters, and himself to the servants. He died in. 1717, after displaying his powers in the provinces, in the capital, and at court. Eight years after his death, in 1725, his sermons were published at Paris, in 6 vols. 12mo, and were much approved by all persons of piety and taste. “His manner of reasoning,” says his editor, father Monteuil, “had not that dryness which frequently destroys the effect of a discourse; nor did he employ that studied elocution which frequently enervates the style by an excess of polish.” The best composition in these volumes is the funeral oration on Mary of Austria. As a trait of his humility, it is related, that on being told by a person in a large company, that they had been fellow-students; he replied, “I cannot easily forget it, since you not only lent me books, but gave me clothes.”

Of the person of Dr. Hunter it may be observed that he was regularly shaped, but of a slender make, and rather below a middle stature. There are several good portraits of him extant. One of these is an unfinished painting by Zoffany, who has represented him in the attitude of giving a lecture on the muscles at the royal academy, surrounded by a groupe of academicians. His manner of living was extremely simple and frugal, and the quantity of his food was small as well as plain. He was an early riser, and when business was over, was constantly engaged in his anatomical pursuits, or in his museum. There was something very engaging in his manner and address, and he had such an appearance of attention to his patients when he was making his inquiries, as could hardly fail to conciliate their confidence and esteem. In consultation with his medical brethren^ he delivered his opinions with diffidence and candour. In familiar conversation he was chearful and unassuming. All who knew him allowed that he possessed an excellent understanding, great readiness of perception, a good memory, and a sound judgment. To these intellectual powers he united uncommon assiduity and precision, so that he was admirably fitted for anatomical investigation. As a teacher of anatomy, he was long and deservedly celebrated. He was a good orator, and having a clear and accurate conception of what he taught, he knew how to place in distinct and intelligible points of view the most abstruse subjects of anatomy and physiology. How much he contributed to the improvement of medical science in general, may be collected from the concise view we have taken of his writings. The munificence he displayed in the cause of science has likewise a claim to our applause. Dr. Hunter sacrificed no part of his time or his fortune to voluptuousness, to idle pomp, or to any of the common objects of vanity that influence the pursuits of mankind in general. He seems to have been animated with a desire of distinguishing himself in those things which are in their nature laudable; and being a bachelor, and without views of establishing a family, he was at liberty to indulge his inclination. Let us, therefore, not withhold the praise that is due to him; and undoubtedly his temperance, his prudence, his persevering and eager pursuit of knowledge, constitute an example which we may, with advantage to ourselves and to society, endeavour to imitate.

, an Athenian orator, disciple of Plato and Isocrates, flourished about 335 years before the Christian aera. He was a sincere patriot, and so strenuous a lover of justice and liberty, that he did not hesitate to accuse his I'riend Demosthenes of receiving money from Harpalus, and actually drove him into banishment. They were afterwards reconciled, and perished about the same time. When the Athenians were beaten at Cranon, he was dragged out of the temple of Ceres, and delivered up to Antipater. He died about 322. He published many of his orations, of which one only is extant, and that in some degree dubious. It stands the 17th among those of Demosthenes. There are also some fragments. His style of eloquence has been variously estimated by the critics of his own country.

, an Italian writer, was born at Florence, in 1466, and was the disciple of Marsiiius Ficinus, under whom he studied the- Platonic philosophy, and became a great master of it. He was also a good orator, and succeeding Ficinus in his professorship, held it till his death, which happened in 1522. There is extant by him, “A Treatise of Beauty,” and another of “Love,” according to the doctrine of Plato, besides several others, which were all printed together at Basil in 1563.

, an English poet, born in 1678, was the son of Christopher Jeffreys, esq. of Weldron in Northamptonshire, and nephew to James the eighth lord Chandos. He was educated at Westminster school under Dr. Busby, and was admitted of Trinity college, Cambridge, in 1694, where he took the degrees in arts, was elected fellow in 1701, and presided in the philosophyschools as moderator in 1706. He was also sub-orator for. Dr. Ayloffe, and not going into orders within eight years, as the statutes of that college required, he quitted his fellowship in 1709. Though Mr. Jeffreys was called to the bar, he never practised the law, but, after acting as secretary to Dr. Hartstronge bishop of Derry, at the latter end of queen Anne’s and the beginning of George the First’s reign, spent most of the remainder of his life in the families of the two last dukes of Chandos, his relations. In 1754 he published, by subscription, a 4to volume of “Miscellanies, in verse and prose,” among which are two tragedies, “Edwin,” and “Merope,” both acted at the theatre-royal in Lincoln’s- inn- fields, and “The Triumph of Truth,” an oratorio. “This collection,” as the author observes in his dedication to the late duke of Chandos, then marquis of Carnarvon, “includes an uncommon length of time, from the verses on the duke of Gloucester’s death in 1700, to those on his lordship’s marriage in 1753.” Mr. Jeffreys died in 1755, aged seventy-seven. In sir John Hawkins’s “History of Music,” his grandfather, George, is recorded as Charles the First’s organist at Oxford, in 1643, and servant to lord Hatton in Northamptonshire, where he had lands of his own; and also his father, Christopher, of Weldron in Northamptonshire, as “a student of Christ church, who played well on the organ.” The anonvmous verses prefixed to “Cato,” were by this gentleman, which Addison never knew. The alterations in the Odes in the “Select Collection” are from the author’s corrected copy.

Erasmus, who wrote his life, and gave the first edition of his works in 1526, says, that he was “undoubtedly the greatest scholar, the greatest orator, and the greatest divine that Christianity had then produced.” But Cave, who never yet was charged with want of justice to the fathers, says, that Jerom “was, with Erasmus’s leave, a hot and furious man, who had no command at all over his passions. When he was once provoked, he treated his adversaries in the roughest manner, and did not even abstain from invective and satire witness what he has written against Ruffinus, who was formerly his friend against John, bishop of Jerusalem, Jovinian, Vigilantius, and others. Upon the slightest provocation, he grew excessively abusive, and threw out all the ill language he could rake together, without the least regard to the situation, rank, learning, and other circumstances, of the persons he had to do with. And what wonder,” says Cave, “when it is common with him to treat even St. Paul himself in very harsh and insolent terms charging him, as he does, with solecisms in language, false expressions, and a vulgar use of words?” We do not quote this with any view of detracting from the real merit of Jerom, but only to note the partiality of Erasmus, in defending, as he does very strenuously, this most exceptionable part of his character, his want of candour and spirit of persecution; to which Erasmus himself was so averse, that hr lias ever been highly praised by protestants, and as highly dispraised by papists, for placing all his glory in moderation.

Jerom was as exceptionable in many parts of his literary character, as he was in his moral, whatever Erasmus or his panegyrists may have said to the contrary instead of an orator, he was rather a declaimer and, though he undertook to translate so many things out of Greek and Hebrew, he was not accurately skilled in either of those languages; and did not reason clearly, consistently, and precisely, upon any subject. This has been shewn in part already by Le Clerc, in a book entitled “Quaestiones Hieronymianae,” printed at Amsterdam in 1700, by way of critique upon the Benedictine edition of his works. In the mean time we are ready to acknowledge, that the writings of Jerom are useful, and deserve to be read by all who have any regard for sacred antiquity. They have many uses in common with other writings of ecclesiastical authors, and many peculiar to themselves. The writings of Jerom teach us the doctrines, the rites, the manners, and the learning of the age in which he lived; and these also we learn from the writings of other fathers. But the peculiar use of JeronVs works is, 1. Their exhibiting to us more fragments of the ancient Greek translators of the Bible, than the works of any other father 2. Their informing us of the opinions which the Jews of that age had of the signification of many Hebrew words, and of the sense and meaning they put upon many passages in the Old Testament; and, 3. Their conveying to us the opinion of Jerom himself; who, though he must always be read with caution, on account of his declamatory and hyperbolical style, and the liberties he allowed himself of feigning and prevaricating upon certain occasions, will perhaps, upon the whole, be found to have had more judgment as well as more learning than any father who went before him.

He had early imbibed Protestant principles, and inculcated them among his pupils; but this was carried on privately till the accession of Edward VI. in 1546, when he made a public declaration of his faith, and entered into a close friendship with Peter Martyr, who was professor of divinity at Oxford. Mr. Jewel was one of his most constant hearers, and used to take down his lectures, by means of a kind of short-hand invented by himself, with so much accuracy, that he was frequently afterwards employed in taking down the substance of public debates on religion, which were then common. In 1551 he took the degree of B. D. and frequently preached before the university with great applause. At the same time he preached and catechised every other Sunday at Sunningwell in Berkshire, of which church he was rector. Thus he zealously promoted the Reformation during this reign, and, in a proper sense, became a confessor for it in the succeeding; so early, as to be expelled the college by the fellows, upon their private authority, before any law was made, or order given by queen Mary. On this occasion, they had nothing to object against him, but, 1, His followiug of Peter Martyr. 2. His preaching some doctrines contrary to popery. 3. His taking orders according to the laws then in force. 4. And, according to Fuller, his refusal to be present at mass, and other popish solemnities. At his departure he took leave of the college in a Latin speech, full of pathetic eloquence. Unwilling, however, to leave the university, he took chambers in Broadgate-halJ, now Pembroke college, where many of his pupils followed him, besides other gentlemen, who were induced by the fame of his learning to attend his lectures. But the strongest testimony to his literary merit was given by the university, who made him their orator, and employed him to write their first congratulatory address to her majesty. Wood indeed observes, that this task was evidently imposed upon him by those who meant him no kindness; it being taken for granted, that he must either provoke the Roman catholics, or lose the good opinion of his party. If this be true, which is probable enough, he had the dexterity to escape the snare; for the address, being both respectful and guarded, passed the approbation of Tresham the commissary, and some other doctors, and was well received by the queen; but his latest biographer attributes the appointment solely to the opinion the university had of him as an elegant writer, and therefore the most fit to pen an address on such an occasion.

Mr. Johnson in the latter part of his life was attacked with a vertiginous disorder in his head, which frequently interrupted his studies, and at last put a period to his life, Feb. 6, 1755. He acquired a general esteem from the frankness and benevolence of his character, which displayed itself not less in social life than in the communication of his literary researches. Strangers who applied to him for information, though without any introduction except what arose from a genuine thirst for knowledge congenial with his own, failed not to experience the hospitality of his board. While their spirit of curiosity was feasted by the liberal conversation of the man of letters, their social powers were at the same time gratified by the hospitable frankness of the benevolent Englishman. The following eulogium on him by Dr. Stukeley, is transcribed from the original in the “Minutes of the Society of Antiquaries:” “Maurice Johnson, esq. of Spalding in Lincolnshire, counsellor at law, a fluent orator, and of eminence in his profession one of the last of the founders of the Society of Antiquaries, 1717, except Br. Willis and W. Stukeley founder of the literary society at Spaldfog, Nov. 3, 1712, which, by his unwearied endeavours, interest, and application in every kind, infinite labours in writing, collecting, methodizing, has now [1755] subsisted forty years in great reputation, and excited a great spirit of learning and curiosity in South Holland [in Lincolnshire]. They have a public library, and all conveniences for their weekly meeting. Mr. Johnson was a great lover of gardening, and had a fine collection of plants, and an excellent cabinet of medals. He collected large memoirs for the ‘ History of Carausius,’ all which, with his coins of that prince, be sent to me, particularly a brass one which he supposed his son, resembling those of young Tetricus. A good radiated Caes Spfa. Rev. a woman holds a cornucopiæ, resting her right hand on a pillar or rudder, Locis or Cislo. In general the antiquities of the great mitred priory of Spalding, and of this part of Lincolnshire, are for ever obliged to the care and diligence of Maurice Johnson, who has rescued them from oblivion.”

, a celebrated Grecian orator, of Chalcis, in Syria, the d isciple of Lysias, and master of Demosthenes, was born probably about 418 B.C. He taught rhetoric with reputation at Athens; and sixty-four orations are attributed to him, but he composed only fifty, and we have but ten of them remaining in the “Greek Orators” of Stephens, 1575, fol. of which we have an excellent translation by sir William Jones, in 1779, 4to. Isaeus took Lysias for his model, and has so well imitated his style and elegance, that he might be easily confounded with the other but for the figures of speech, which Isaeus is the first orator who makes frequent use of. He was also the first who applied eloquence to political subjects, in which his pupil Demosthenes followed him. He must be distinguished from another celebrated orator named Is^us, who lived at Rome in the time of the younger Pliny, about the year 97, by whom he is highly extolled. A sketch of his life is drawn by Philostratus, but he had nothing in common with the Athenian orator, except the volubility of his language, and his name, which last sir William Jones thinks might be assumed, as that of Isocrates also was taken by one of the later sophists, who wrote the instructions to Demonicus. The best of the recent editions of Isseus is that of Reiske, in the “Orat. Graec.” Leipsic, 1770 75, 8vo.

, an eminent Greek orator, was born at Athens, in the 86th olympiad, five years before the Peloponnesian war, and 436 B. C. At an early age he began to study philosophy and rhetoric under Gorgias, Prodicus, and Tiseas, whose doctrines and eloquence about this period astonished all Greece. It is affirmed that he also was a disciple of the celebrated orator Theramenes, whom the thirty tyrants caused to be put to death because he favoured the popular cause. He passionately loved glory; and the desire of distinguishing himself, and of bearing a part in the public administration, animated all his proceedings. In order to this end, besides possessing information and a turn for business, it was necessary to excel in eloquence; but nature having denied him both voice and self-command, he directed his efforts to composition, and confined himself to interesting questions, such as appeared to him calculated to render his country happy, and his fellow-citizens virtuous. His talents corresponded with the grandeur of his views. Youth flocked from all parts to be his pupils, and to form themselves on his lessons. Some of them afterwards became orators, some great statesmen, and others polished and profound historians. He died loaded with glory and wealth, at the age of ninety years, a few days previous to the battle of Chaeronea, B. C. 338.

He published several works, viz. 1. “Sermons,” printed at different times. 2. “Exposition of the Lord’s Prayer,” 1628, and 1634, 4to. 3. “The Psalms of David, from the new translation of the Bible, turned into Metre, &c.” 165 1, 12mo. 4. “A deep Groan fetched at the Funeral of the incomparable and glorious monarch king Charles J.” 1649, in one sheet. 5. “Poems, Elegies, Paradoxes, Sonnets,” 1657, 8vo. 6. Various Latin and Greek poems, published in several books. 7. There is a letter of his to Mr. Isaac Walton, concerning the three imperfect books of Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity; dated Nov. 17, 1664, and prefixed to Walton’s “Life of Hooker.” The merit of his poems, with extracts, has been ably discussed by Headley, Ellis, and Park, as appears by our authorities. He had a brother, John, who became a student of Christ church in 160$, and was afterwards public orator of the university, canon of Christ church in 1624, and the year following doctor of divinity and canon of Windsor, and about that time prebendary of St. Paul’s, and rector of Remenham in Berkshire. He died January 2, 1638-9, and was interred at Christ church in Oxford. He published a single sermon, and one or two Latin orations.

He was the author of 1. “Miltoni epistola ad Pollionem” (lord Polwarth). 2. << Sermo Pedestris.“3.” Scamnum, ecloga.“4.” Templum libertatis,“in three books. 5.” Tres Oratiunculae.“6.” Epistola objurgatoria.“7.” Antoriietti ducis Corscorum epistola ad Corscos de rege eligendo.“8.” Eulogium Jacci Eionensis.“9.” Aviti epistola ad Perillam, virginem Scotam,“&c. 10.” Oratiuncula habita in domo convocationis Oxon. cum epistola dedicatoria,“1757, and” Epitaphium Richardi Nash." Besides these, he published the first five volumes of Dr. South’s sermons. He was known and esteemed by the first men of his time for wit and learning; and must be allowed to have been a polite scholar, an excellent orator, and an elegant and easy writer, both in Latin and English. He died Dec. 30, 1763, having sketched his own character in an elegant epitaph, in which, while he acknowledges his failings, he claims the praise of benevolence, temperance, and fortitude. This epitaph was to be engraved on a silver case, in which he directed his heart should be pn^erved in some convenient part of St. Mary Hall. He was buried in Ealing church, but the inscription is on a marble tablet in the chapel of St. Mary-hall. There is a striking likeness of Dr. King in Worlidge’s view of the installation of lord Westmorland as chancellor of Oxford in 1761.

, or Lucius Cælius, or Cæcilius (Firmianus), an eminent father of the church, was, as some say, an African, or, according to others, a native of Fermo, a town in the marche of Ancdna, whence Le is supposed to have taken his surname. Arnobius was his preceptor. He studied rhetoric in Africa, and with so great reputation, that Constantine the Roman emperor appointed him preceptor to his son Crispus. This brought him to court; but he was so far from giving into the pleasures or corruptions incident to that station, that, amidst very great opportunities of amassing riches, he lived so poor as even frequently to want necessaries. He is account^d the most eloquent of all the ecclesiastical Latin authors. He formed himself upon Cicero, and wrote in such a pure, smooth, and natural, style, and so much in the taste and manner of the lloman orator, that he is generally distinguished by the title of “The Christian Cicero.” We have several pieces of his, the principal of which is his “Institutiones Divinae,” in seven books, composed about the year 320, in defence of Christianity, against all its opposers. Of this treatise he made an abridgment, of which we have only a part, and added it to another tract, “De Ira Divina.” In 1777 the late sir David Dalrymple lord Hailes, published with notes a correct edition of the fifth book “De Justitia,” Edin. 12mo. Lactantius had before written a book “De Operibus Dei,” in which he proves the creation of man, and the divine providence. St. Jerome mentions other works of our author, as “Two Books to Æsclepiades;” “Eight Books of Letters;” a book entitled “The Festin,” composed before he went to Nicomedia; a poem in hexameter verse, containing a description of his journey thither; a treatise entitled “The Grammarian;” and another, “De Persecutione.” Concerning this last tract, there are various opinions. Dr. Lardner, after stating the evidence on both sides, seems inclined to deny that it was written by LaCtantius. He allows, however, that it is a very valuable work, containing; a short account of the sufferings of Christians under several of the Roman emperors, from the death and resurrection of Christ to Dioclesian; and then a particular history of the persecution excited by that emperor, with the causes and springs of it; as well as the miserable deaths of its chief instruments. The learned judge above mentioned, who published a translation of this work in 1782, Edin. 12mo, has also examined the opinions of those who have treated of its authenticity, with far more acuteness than Lardner, and concludes with Baluze, Mosheim, and other eminent critics, that the treatise “De Mortibus Persecutorum” was written by Lactantius. Lord Hailes’s preface is a master-piece of critical inquiry, nor are his notes and illustrations, which occupy one half of the volume, of less merit or utility.

Immediately upon the accession of Edward VI. he and all others who were imprisoned in the same cause, were set at liberty; and Latimer, whose old friends were now in power, was received by them with every mark of affection. He would have found no difficulty in dispossessing Heath, in every respect an insignificant man, who had succeeded to his bishopric: but he had other sentiments, and would neither make suit himself, nor suffer his friends to make any, for his restoration. However, this was done by the parliament, who, after settling the national concerns, sent up an address to the protector to restore him: and the protector was very well inclined, and proposed the resumption to Latimer as a point which he had very much at heart; but LatinYer persevered in the negative, alleging his great age, and the claim he had from thence to a private life. Having thus rid himself of all incumbrance, he accepted an invitation from Cranmer, and took up his residence at Lambeth, where he led a very retired life, being chiefly employed in hearing the complaints and redressing the injuries, of the poor people. And, indeed, his character for services of this kind was so universally known, that strangers from every part of England would resort to him, so that he had as crowded a levee as a minister of state. In these employments he spent more than two years, interfering as little as possible in any public transaction; only he assisted the archbishop in composing the homilies, which were set forth by authority in the first year of king Edward; he was also appointed to preach the Lent sermons before his majesty, which office he performed during the first three years of his reign. As to his sermons, which are still extant, they are, indeed, far enough from being exact pieces of composition: yet, his simplicity and familiarity, his humour and gibing drollery, were well adapted to the times; and his oratory, according to the mode of eloquence at that day, was exceedingly popular. His action and manner of preaching too were very affecting, for he spoke immediately from his heart His abilities, however, as an orator, made only the inferior part of his character as a preacher. What particularly recommends him is, that noble and apostolic zeal whi^h he exerts in the cause of truth.

Dr. Lclund’s other publications in his life-time were only a few occasional sermons, of greater merit as to manner and matter than the three volumes of sermons printed after his death, which have the disadvantage of not being prepared for the press. He died in 1785. His fame rests on his “Life of Philip,” his “Demosthenes,” and his “Dissertation upon Eloquence.” The “Life of Philip,” says an eminent living scholar, “contains many curious researches into the principles of government established among the leading states of Greece; many sagacious remarks on their intestine discords; many exact descriptions of their most celebrated characters; together with an extensive and correct view of those subtle intrigues, and those ambitious projects, by which Philip, at a favourable crisis. gradually obtained an unexampled and fatal mastery over the Grecian republics. In the translation of” Demosthenes,“Leland unites the man of taste and the man of learning; and shews himself to have possessed, not only a competent knowledge of the Greek language, but that clearness in his own conceptions, and that animation in his feelings, which enabled him to catch the real meaning, and to preserve the genuine spirit of the most perfect orator that Athens ever produced. Through the” Dissertation upon Eloquence,“and the” Defence“of it, we see great accuracy of erudition; great perspicuity and strength of style; and above all, a stoutness of judgment, which, in traversing the open and spacious walks of literature, disdained to be led captive.”

The writings of Libanius are numerous, and he composed and delivered various orations, as well demonstrative as deliberative, and also many fictitious declamations and disputations. Of these Frederic Morell published as many as he could collect in 2 vols. folio, in Greek and Latin. In the first vol. Paris, 1606, are XIII “Exercises” (Progymnasmala) XLIV “Declamations;” and in “Moral Dissertations” and in the second vol. Paris, 1627, are the “Life of Libanius,” and xxxvi other orations, most of them long and on serious subjects. This edition of Morcll having long been discovered to be very erroneous, the learned Reiske undertook a new edition, collated with six Mss. which he did not live to complete, but which was at last published by his widow in 1791—1797, 4 vols. 8vo. Of the productions of Libanius, Gibbon says that they are, for the most part, the vain and idle compositions of an orator who cultivated the science of words; the productions of a recluse student, whose mind, regardless of his contemporaries, was incessantly fixed on the Trojan war and the Athenian commonwealth.

, a learned English divine, was born on the 19th or 29th of March, 1602, at Stoke upon Trent, in Staffordshire. His father was Thomas Lightfoot, vicar of Uttoxeter in that county . After having finished his studies at a school kept by Mr. Whitehead on Mortongreen, near Congleton in Cheshire, he was removed in 1617, to Cambridge, and put under the tuition of Mr. William Chappel, then fellow of Christ’s college there, and afterwards bishop of Cork in Ireland, who was also the tutor of Henry More, Milton, &c. At college he applied himself to eloquence, and succeeded so well as to be thought the best orator of the undergraduates in the uni versity. He also made an extraordinary proficiency in the Latin and Greek; but neglected the Hebrew, and even lost that knowledge he brought of it from school. His taste for the Oriental languages was not yet excited; and, as for logic, the study of it, as managed at that time among the academics, was too contentious for his quiet and meek disposition.

In this station he preserved the esteem of both parties for some time, and the two houses of parliament agreed to return their thanks by him to the king, for passing the triennial bill, and that of the subsidies; but, as he concurred in the votes for raising an army, and seizing the militia, in March 1641, measures very hostile to the royal cause, the king sent an order from York to lord Falkland, to demand the seal from him, and to consult about a successor with Hyde, afterwards earl of Clarendon; but this last step prevented the former order from being put into execution. Hyde, who always entertained a great regard for the keeper, had, upon his late behaviour, paid him a visit at Exeter-house, on which occasion the keeper freely disclosed his mind, lamenting that he had been removed from the common-pleas, of which court he was acquainted with the business aud the persons with whom he had to deal, to an higher office, which involved him with another sort of men, and in affairs to which he was a stranger; and this without his having one friend among them, to whom he could confide any difficulty that occurred to him. Adverting likewise to the unhappy state of the king’s affairs, he said that the party in hostility to the court “would never have done what they had already, unless they had been determined to do more: that he foresaw it would not be long before a war would break out, and of what importance it was, in that season, that the great seal should be with his majesty; that the prospect of this necessity had made him comply to a certain degree with that party; that there had lately been a consultation, whether, in case the king might send for him, or the great seal be taken from him, it were advisable to keep it in some secure place, where the keeper should receive it upon occasion, they having no mind to disoblige him: that the knowledge of this had induced him to vote as he did in the late debates; and by that compliance, which he knew would give the king a bad impression of him, he had gained so much credit with them, that he should be able to preserve the seal in his own hands till his majesty should demand it, and then he would be ready to wait on the king with it, declaring that no man should be more willing to perish with and for his majesty than himself.” Mr. Hyde acquainted lord Falkland with this conference; and, being confident that the lord-keeper would keep his promise, recommended to advise his majesty to write a kind invitation to the keeper to come to York, and bring the seal with him, rather than, think of giving it to any other person. The advice was embraced by the king, who, though he still had his doubts of Littleton’s sincerity, was influenced by the reasons assigned; and accordingly the seal was sent to York on the f2d, and followed by the keeper on the 23d of May, 1642. But, notwithstanding this piece of service and eminent proof of his loyalty, at the risk of his life, he could never totally regain the king’s confidence, or the esteem of the court-party. He continued, however, to enjoy his post, in which he attended his majesty to Oxford, was there created doctor of laws, and made one of the king’s privycouncil, and colonel of a regiment of foot in the same service, some time before his death, which happened Aug. 27, 1645, at Oxford. His body was interred in the cathedral of Christ church; uu which Qccasioa a funeral oration was pronounced by the celebrated Dr. Hammond, then orator to the university. In May 1683, a monument was erected there to his memory, by his only daughter and heiress, the lady Anne Lyttelton, widow of sir Thomas Lyttelton; and the same year came out his “Reports,” in folio, which, however, Mr. Stevens, in his introduction to lord Bacon’s Letters, edition 1702, p. 21, thinks were not composed by him, many of the cases being the same verbatim as in Hetley’s reports. Lord Clarendon says of sir Edward Littleton, that “he was a man of great reputation in the profession of the law, for learning, and all other advantages which attend the most eminent men. He was of a very good extraction in Shropshire, and inherited a fair fortune and inheritance from his father. He was a handsome and a proper man, of a very graceful presence, and notorious courage, which in his youth he had manifested with his sword. He had taken great pains in the hardest and most knotty part of the law, as well as that which was most customary; and was not only ready and expert in the books, but exceedingly versed in records, in studying and examining whereof he had kept Mr. Selden company, with whom he had great friendship, and who had much assisted him: so that he was looked upon as the best antiquary of his profession, who gave himself up to practice; and, upon the mere strength of his abilities, he had raised himself into the first of the practisers of the common law courts, and was chosen recorder of London before he was called to the bench, and grew presently into the highest practice in all the other courts, as well as those of the law.” Whitelocke also observes, that he was a man of courage, and of excellent parts and learning. But we fear he cannot be altogether acquitted of unsteadiness in some parts of his conduct, although it must at the same time be owned that when he found he could no longer retain the seal with credit, he delivered it, with his own hands, to his unhappy sovereign, and died firmly attached to his cause.

Besides his astronomical work,- he published in 1731, under the name of Dicaiophilus Cantabrigiensis, “The Rights of Churches and Colleges defended; in answer to a pamphlet called * An Enquiry into the customary estates and tenant-rights of those who hold lands of church and other foundations, by the term of three lives, &c. by Everard Fleetwood, esq.;' with remarks upon some other pieces on the same subject,” 8vo. The author of this pamphlet, to which our author replied, was not Fleetwood, which was an assumed name, but Samuel Burroughs, esq. a master in chancery. Dr. Long published also a “Commencement-Sermon, 1728;” and an answer to Dr. Gally’s pamphlet “On Greek Accents.” We shall subjoin a few traits of him, as delineated in 1769, by Mr. Jones: " He is now in the eighty-eighth year of his age, and, for his years, vegete and active. He was lately (in October) put in nomination for the office of vice-chancellor. He executed that trust before; I think in the year 1737. A very ingenious person, and sometimes very facetious. At the public commencement in the year 1713, Dr. Greene (master of Bene't college, and afterwards bishop of Ely) being then vice-chancellor, Mr. Long was pitched upon for the tripos-performance; it was witty and humourous, and has passed through divers editions. Some that remembered the delivery of it told me, that, in addressing ttye vice chancellor (whom the university-wags usually styled Miss Greene), the tripos-orator, being a native of Norfolk, and assuming the Norfolk dialect, instead of saying, Domine vice-cancellarie, did very archly pronounce the words thus, Domina vice-cancellaria; which occasioned a general smile in that great auditory. His friend the late Mr. Bonfoy of Ripton told me this little incident: `That he and Dr. Long walking together in Cambridge, in a dusky evening, and coming to a short post fixed in the pavement, which Mr. B. in the midst of chat and inattention, took to be a boy standing in his way, he said in a hurry, `Get out of my way, boy.‘ `That boy, sir,’ said the doctor very calmly and slily, `is a post-boy, who turns out of his way for nobody.'

, a learned dissenting clergyman, was born in 1680. He was originally destined for the law, and in 1697 entered as a student in the Middle-Temple, but in about two years he changed his purpose and determined to study divinity. With this view he went over to Holland in 1699, where he studied partly at Utrecht and partly at Leyden. In 1710, after being admitted to the ministry among the dissenters, he settled with the congregation at Claphana, as assistant to Mr. Grace, whom he succeeded as their pastor, and was ordained in 1714. In this situation he continued to his death, preaching twice each Sunday until within a few weeks of that event. He distinguished himself, from the period of his academical studies, in metaphysics and divinity: and, to the close of his life, he was an indefatigable reader, and acquired an extraordinary stock of useful knowledge, particularly in Jewish learning and antiquities, to which last he was much devoted. The result of this application appeared in the learned works he published, and which constituted his chief fame; for as a pulpit orator, it does not appear that he was much admired. Dr. Chandler, who preached his funeral sermon, gives him a very high personal character. He died May 3, 1752, in the seventy-third year of his age.

, one of the most learned protestants of his time, was born at Westersted, in the county of Oldenburg, March 24, 1556, of which place his father was minister, who sent him first to Leipsic, where he prosecuted his studies with great success, and for further improvement went thence to Cologne. After this he visited the several universities of Helmstadt, Strasburg, Jena, Marpurg, and, last of all, Rostock, where he was made professor of poetry in 1595. Having there read lectures with great applause for ten years, he was advanced to the divinity chair in the same university, in 1605. In 1620 he was seized with a tertian ague, under which he laboured for ten months before it put a period to his life in June 162 1. He has the character of having been a good Greek scholar, and was well skilled in the Latin language, in which he made good verses, and he had much reputation as an orator, a mathematician, and a divine. He published several books, namely, 1. “Antiquarius, sive priscorum et minus usitatorum vocabulorum brevis et dilucida interpretatio.” 2. “Clavis Graecae linguae.” 3. “Anacreon, Juvenal, and Persius, with notes.” 4. “Horace and Juvenal, with a paraphrase.” 5. “The Anthologia, with a Latin version,” 1604, 4to. 6. “Epistolae veterum Grsecorum, Greece et Latine, cum methodo conscribendarum epistolarum.” 7. “Commentaiies upon some of the Epistles of St. Paul.” 8. “Monotessaion,sive historia evangelica,” &c. &c. i. e. a harmony of the four Evangelists. 9. “Nonni Dionysiaca,” in Greek and Latin, at Francfort, 1605, 8vo. 10. “Latin Poems,” inserted in the third volume of “Deliciae ^oetarum Germanorum.”

, a celebrated Roman poet, was a native of Cordova, in Spain, where he was born Nov. lh> in the year 37. His father Annseus Mela, a Roman knight, a man of distinguished merit and interest in his country, was the youngest brother of Seneca the philosopher; and his mother, Acilia, was daughter of Acilius Lucanus, an eminent orator, from which our author took his name. When only eight months old he was carried to Rome and carefully educated under the ablest masters in grammar and rhetoric, a circumstance which renders it singular that critics have endeavoured to impute the defects in his style to his being a Spaniard; but it is certain that his whole education was Roman. His first masters were Palaemon, the grammarian, and Flavius Virginius, the rhetorician. He then studied under Cornutus, from whom he imbibed the sentiments of the stoic school, and probably derived the lofty and free strain by which he is so much distinguished. It is said he completed his education at Athens. Seneca, then tutor to the emperor Nero, obtained for him the office of quaestor: he was soon after admitted to the college of augurs, and considered to be in the full career of honour and opulence. He gave proofs of poetical talents at a very early age, and acquired reputation by several compositions; a circumstance peculiarly unfortunate for him, as it clashed with the vanity of the emperor, who valued himself on his powers as a poet and musician. On one occasion Lucan was so imprudent as to recite one of his own pieces, in competition with Nero; and as the judges honestly decided in favour of Lucan, Nero forbad him to repeat any more of his verses in public, and treated him with so much indignity that Lucan no more looked up to him with the respect due to a patron and a sovereign, but took a part in the conspiracy of Piso and others against the tyrant; which being discovered, he was apprehended among the other conspirators. Tacitus and other authors have accused him of endeavouring to free himself from punishment by accusing his own mother, and involving her in the crime of which he was guilty. Mr. Hayley has endeavoured to rescue his name from so terrible a charge; and it is more likely that it was a calumny raised by Nero’s party to ruin his reputation. Be this as it may, his confessions were ofno avail, and no favour was granted him but the choice of the death he would die; and he chose the same which had terminated the life of his uncle Seneca. His veins were accordingly opened; and when he found himself growing cold and faint through loss of blood, he repeated some of his own lines, describing a wounded soldier sinking in a similar manner. He died in the year 65, and in the twentyseventh year of his age. Of the various poems of Lucan, none but his Pharsalia remain, which is an account of the civil wars between Caesar and Pompey, but is come down to us in an unfinished state. Its title to the name of an epic poem has been disputed by those critics, who, from the examples of Homer and Virgil, have maintained that machinery, or the intervention of supernatural agency, is essential to that species of composition. Others, however, have thought it rather too fastidious to refuse the epic name to a poem because not exactly conformable to those celebrated examples. Blair objects, tliat although Lucan’s subject is abundantly heroic, he cannot be reckoned happy in the choice of it, because it has two defects, the one its being too near the times in which he lived, which deprived him of the assistance of fiction and machinery; the other that civil wars, especially when as fierce and cruel as those of the Romans, present too many shocking objects to be fit for epic poetry, gallant and honourable achievements being a more proper theme for the epic muse. But Lucan’s genius seems to delight in savage scenes, and he even goes out of his way to introduce a long episode of Marius and Sylla’s proscriptions, which abounds with all the forms of atrocious cruelty. On the merits of the poetry itself there are various opinions. Considered as a school book, Dr. Warton has classed it with Statins, Claudian, and Seneca the tragedian, authors into whose works no youth of genius should ever be suffered to look, because, by their forced conceits, by their violent metaphors, by their swelling epithets, by their want of a just decorum, they have a strong tendency to dazzle and to mislead inexperienced minds, and tastes unformed, from the true relish of possibility, propriety, simplicity and nature. On the other hand it has been said, that although Lucan certainly possesses neither the fire of Homer, nor the melodious numbers of Virgil, yet if he had lived to a maturer age, his judgment as well as his genius would have been improved, and he might have claimed a more exalted rank among the poets of the Augustan age. His expressions are bold and animated; his poetry entertaining; and it has been asserted that he was never perused without the warmest emotions, by any whose minds were in unison with his own.

In October 1524, Luther threw off the monastic habit; which, though not premeditated and designed, was yet a very proper preparative to a step he took the year after; we mean, his marriage with Catherine de Bore. Catherine cie Bore was a gentleman’s daughter, who had been a nun, and was one of those whom we mentioned as escaping from tue nunnery in 1523. Luther had a design to marry her to Glacius, a minister of Ortamuncien; but she did not like Glacius, and Luther married her himself, June 13, 1525. This conduct of his was blamed not only by the catholics, but, as Melancthon says, by those of his own party. He was even for some time ashamed of it himself; aud owns, “that his marriage had made him so despicable, that he hoped his humiliation would rejoice the angels, and vex the devils.” Melancthon found him so afflicted with what he had done, that he wrote some letters of consolation to him: he adds, however, that “this accident may possibly not be without its use, as it tends to humble him a little: for it is dangerous,” says he, “not only for a priest, but for any man, to be too much elated and puffed up; great success giving occasion to the sin of a high mind, not only, as the orator says, in fools, but sometimes even in wise men.” It was not so much the marriage, as the circumstances of the time, and the precipitation with which it was done, that occasioned the censures passed upon Luther. He married very suddenly, and at a time when Germany was groaning under the miseries of war, which was said at least to be owing to Lutheranism. It was thought also an indecent thing in a man of forty-two years of age, who was then, as he declared, restoring the gospel and reforming mankind, to involve himself in marriage with a woman of six and twenty, upon any pretext. But Luther, as soon as he had recovered himself a little from this abashment, assumed his former air of intrepidity, and boldly supported what he had done with reasons. “I took a wife,” says he, “in obedience to my father’s commands, and hastened the consummation, in or 1 r to prevent impediments, and stop the tongues of slanderers.” It appears from his own confessions, that,this reformer was very fond of Mrs. de Bore, and used to call her his Catherine; which occasioned some slanderous reflections and therefore, says he, “I married of a sudden, not only that J might not be obliged to hear the clamours which I knew would be raised against me, but to stop the mouths of those who reproached me with Catherine de Bore.” Luther also gives us to understand, that he did it partly as concurring with his grand scheme of opposing the catholics. “See,” says he, “because they are thus mad, I have so prepared myself, that, before I die, I may be found by God in the state in which I was created, and, if possible, retain nothing of my former popish life. Therefore let them rave yet more, and this will be their last farewell; for my mind presages, that I shall soon be called by God unto his grace: therefore, at my father’s commands, I have taken a xtife.” In another letter he speaks thus: “1 hope I shall live a little longer, and I would not deny this last obedience to my father, who required it in hopes of issue, and also to confirm the doctrines I have taught.”

, an Athenian orator, contemporary with Demosthenes, was born about 408 years before the Christian acra, and died about or after 328. He was an Athenian, and the son of a person named Lycophron. He studied philosophy under Plato, and rhetoric under Isocrates. He was of the most exalted character for integrity, in which he was severely scrupulous; a strenuous defender of liberty, a perpetual opposer of Philip and Alexander, and a firm friend of Demosthenes. As a magistrate, he proceeded with severity against criminals, but kept a register of all his proceedings, which, on quitting his office, he submitted to public inspection. When he was about to die, he publicly offered his actions to examination, and refuted the only accuser who appeared against him. He was one of the thirty orators whom the Athenians refused to give up to Alexander. One oration of his, against Leocrates, is still extant, and has been published in the collections of Aldus, Taylor, and Reiske. His eloquence partook of the manly severity and truth of his character.

, an eminent Greek orator, was born at Syracuse, about the year 459 B. C. He was educated at Athens, and became a teacher of rhetoric, and composed orations for others, but does not appear to have been a pleader. Of his orations, which are said to have amounted to three or four hundred, only thirty-four remain. He died in the eighty-first year of his age, and in the 378th year B.C. Cicero and Quintilian give him a very high character, and suppose that there is nothing of their kind more perfect than his orations. Lysias lived at a somewhat earlier period than Isocrates; and exhibits a model of that manner which the ancients call the “tenuis vel subtilis.” He has none of the pomp of Isocrates. He is every where pure and attic in the highest degree; simple and unaffected; but wants force, and is sometimes frigid in his compositions. In the judicious comparison which Dionysius of Halicarnassus makes of the merits of Lysias and Isocrates, he ascribes to Lysias, as the distinguishing character of his manner, a certain grace or elegance arising from simplicity: “the style of Lysias has gracefulness for its nature; that of Isocrates seems to have it.” In the art of narration, as distinct, probable, and persuasive, he holdsf Lysias to be superior to all orators; at the same time he admits, that his composition is more adapted to private litigation than to great subjects. He convinces, but he does not elevate nor animate. The magnificence and splendour of Isocrates are more suited to great occasions. He is more agreeable than Lysias; and in dignity of sentiment far excels him. The first edition of Lysias is that by Aldus, folio, 1513, in the first part of the “Rhetorum Gnecorum orationes.” The best modern editions are that of Taylor, beautifully and correctly printed by Bowyer, in 1739, 4to; of Reiske, at Leipsic, 1772, 8vo and of Auger at Paris, 1782. Auger also published an excellent French translation of Lysias in 1783.

Lord Lyttelton’s literary character has been so long established that it is unnecessary to add much on the subject. His Miscellaneous Works have been often reprinted, and, although in some of them rigid criticism may find objections, cannot be read without pleasure and advantage. His “History of Henry II.” is also now a standard work, valuable both for matter and style. His “^Persian Letters,” written when a very young man, are included among his miscellaneous works, but Dr. Warton informs us that he had intended to discard them, as there were principles and remarks in them that he wished to retract and alter. The reader finds them, however, as originally published, and they contain many shrewd remarks and just ridicule on the manners of the times. His juvenile pieces were not always his worst. Dr. Warton remarks that his Observations on the life of Cicero contain perhaps a more dispassionate and impartial character of that great orator than is exhibited in the panegyrical volumes of Middleton. It may here be noticed that some of his letters to Warton Occur in Wooll’s Life, by which we learn that lord Lyttelton made him his chaplain in 1756. As a poet, we do not find among critics any wide departure from Dr. Johnson’s opinion. Lord Lyttelton’s poems are to be praised chiefly for correctness and elegance of versification and style. His “Advice to Belinda,” though for the most part written when he was very young, contains, Dr. Johnson says, “much truth and much prudence, very elegantly and vigorously expressed, and shows a mind attentive to life, and a power of poetry which cultivation might have raised to excellence.” As far, however, as this implies that lord Lyttelton did not cultivate his powers, we are inclined to think our great critic in error. Lord Lyttelton was very early a poet, and appears to have not only valued his talent, but acquired his first reputation from the exercise of it. He was very early a critic too, as appears by his account of Glover’s “Leonidas,” printed in 1737, and few men were oftener consulted by young poets in the subsequent part of his life. Mickle may be instanced as one whose first pieces were carefully perused and corrected by him, and although Mickle was disappointed in the hopes he entertained from him as a patron, he often owned his obligations to him as a critic. Lord Lyttelton’s was the patronage of kindness rather than of bounty. He courted the acquaintance and loved the company of mn of genius and learning, with whom his correspondence also was extensive, but he had little of his own to give away, and was so long of the party in opposition to ministers, as to have very little state interest.

, a gentleman of great literary research, and one of the ablest commentators on Shakspeare, was descended from an Irish family of the highest antiquity, an account of which may be found in the seventh volume of Archdall’s Peerage of Ireland, which, it is believed, was drawn up by Mr. Malone himself. All his immediate predecessors were distinguished men. His grandfather, while only a student at the Temple, was entrusted with a negotiation in Holland and so successfully acquitted himself, that he was honoured and rewarded by king William for his services. Having been called to the Irish bar about 1700, he became one of the most eminent barristers that have ever appeared in that country. His professional fame has only been eclipsed by that of his eldest son, the still more celebrated Anthony Malone, who as a lawyer, an orator, and an able and upright statesman, was confessedly one of the most illustrious men that his country has produced. Edmond, the second son of Richard, and the father of the late Mr. Malone, was born on the 16th of April, 1704. He was called to the English bar in 1730, where he continued for ten years to practise; and, in 1740, removed to the Irish bar. After having sat in several parliaments, and gone through the usual gradations of professional rank, he was raised, in 1766, to the dignity of one of the judges of the court of common pleas in Ireland, an office which he filled till his death in 1774. He married, in 1736, Catherine, only daughter and heir of Benjamin Collier, esq. of liuckholts, in the county of Essex, by whom he had four sons, Richard, now lord Sunderlin; Edmond, the subject of our present memoir Anthony and Benjamin, who died in their infancy and two daughters, Henrietta and Catherine.

, an Italian grammarian, poet, and orator, was born atVelitri, in 1452. He taught classical learning in different parts of Italy with considerable success. He published in 1492 a poem entitled “Silva vitse suae,” or an account of his own life, which Meuschenius reprinted, in 1735, in the first volume of his collection, entitled “Vitae summorum dignitate et eruditione virorum.” He was distinguished also by some other poems, as “de Floribus, de Figuris, de Poetica virtute.” 2. “Epigrams,” published at Venice in 1500, in 4to. 3. Notes upon some of the classic authors. He died some time after 1506; but the story of his having his hands cut off, and his tongue cut out, by order of the pope Alexander VI. for having made an insolent speech to him, and which was related by Flaccius Illyricus, appears to be without foundation.

A little farther account, however, of this controversy, and its rise, may yet be interesting. In 1741, Mr. Tunstall, public orator of Cambridge, published his doubts on the authenticity of the letters between Cicero and Brutus (which Middleton, in his Life of Cicero, had considered as genuine), in a Latin dissertation. This Middleton called “a frivolous, captious, disingenuous piece of criticism,” answered it in English, and published the disputed epistles with a translation. On this, Tunstall, in 1744, published his “Observations on the Epistles, representing several evident marks of forgery in them, in answer to the late pretences of the Rev. Dr. Conyers Middleton.” Markland, the following year, published his arguments on the same side of the question, which called forth a pamphlet, written by Mr. Ross, afterwards bishop of Exeter, entitled “A Dissertation in which the defence of P. Sylla, ascribed to M. Tullius Cicero, is clearly proved to be spurious, after the manner of Mr. Markland; with some introductory Remarks on other writings of the Ancients, never before suspected.” It is written in a sarcastic style, but with a display of learning very inferior to that of the excellent scholar against whom it was directed, and in a disposition very dissimilar to the candour and fairness which accompanied the writings of Markland. It has lately been discovered that Gray, the celebrated poet, assisted Ross in his pamphlet, but at the same time does not seem to have entertained a very high opinion of Ross’s wit. In a manuscript note in the first leaf of his copy of Markland, he writes: “This book is answered in an ingenious way, but the irony is not quite transparent.” Gray’s copy of Markland is now in the possession of his late excellent biographer, the rev. John Mitford, to whom we are indebted for these particulars. Mr. Mitford adds, that the notes which Gray has written in this copy “display a familiar knowledge of the structure of the Latin language, and answer some of the objections of Markland,” who had not then learnt the caution, in verbal criticism and conjectural emendation, which he well knew how to value when an editor of Euripides.“The only other pamphlet which this controversy produced was entitled” A Dissertation in which the observations of a late pamphlet on the writings of the Ancients, after the manner of Mr. Markland, are clearly answered; those passages in Tully corrected, on which some of the objections are founded: with amendments of a few pieces of criticism in Mr. Markland’s Epistola Critica," Lond. 1746, 8vo. At length Gesner defended the genuineness of the orations in question, and they were reprinted by Ernest, and are still believed to be part of Cicero’s works.

, an eminent French preacher, was born in 1663, the son of a notary at Hieres in Provence In 1681, he entered into the congregation, of the Oratory, and wherever he was sent gained all hearts by the liveliness of his character, the agreeableness of his wit, and a natural fund of sensible and captivating politeness. These advantages, united with his great talents, excited the envy of his brethren, no less than the admiration of others, and, on some ill-founded suspicions of intrigue, he was sent by his superiors to one of their houses in the diocese of Meaux. The first efforts of his eloquence were made at Vienne, while he was a public teacher of theology; and his funeral oration ou Henri de Villars, archbishop of that city, was universally admired. The fame of this discourse induced father de la Tour, then general of the congregation of the Oratory, to send for him to Paris. After some time, being asked his opinion of the principal preachers in that capital, “they display,” said he, “great genius and abilities; but if I preach, I shall not preach as they do.” He kept his word, and took up a style of his own, not attempting to imitate any one, except it was Bourdaloue, whom, at the same time, the natural difference of his disposition did not suffer him to follow very closely. A touching and natural simplicity is the characteristic of his style, and has been thought by able judges to reach the heart, and produce its due effect, with much more certainty than all the logic of the Jesuit Bourdaloue. His powers were immediately distinguished when he made his appearance at court; and when he preached his first advent at Versailles, he received this compliment from Louis XIV. “My father,” said that monarch, “when I hear other preachers, I go away much pleased with them; but whenever I hear you, I go away much displeased with myself.” On one occasion, the effect of a discourse preached by him “on the small number of the elect,” was so extraordinary, that it produced a general, though involuntary murmur of applause in the congregation. The preacher himself was confused by it; but the effect was only increased, and the pathetic was carried to the greatest height that can be supposed possible. His mode of delivery contributed not a little to his success. “We seem to behold him still in imagination,” said they who had been fortunate enough to attend his discourses, “with that simple air, that modest carriage, those eyes so humbly directed downwards, that unstudied gesture, that touching tone of voice, that look of a man fully impressed with the truths which he enforced, conveying the most brilliant instruction to the mind, and the most pathetic movements to the heart.” The famous actor, Baron, after hearing him, told him to continue as he had began. “You,” said he, “have a manner of your own, leave the rules to others.” At another time he said to an actor who was with him “My friend, this is the true orator; we are mere players.” Massillon was not the least inflated by the praises he received. His modesty continued unaltered; and the charms of his society attracted those who were likely to be alarmed at the strictness of his lessons. In 1717, the regent being convinced of his merits by his own attendance on his sermons, appointed him bishop of Clermont. The French academy received him as a member in 1719. The funeral oration of the duchess of Orleans in 1723, was the last discourse he pronounced at Pans. From that time he resided altogether in his diocese, where the mildness, benevolence, and piety of his character, gained all hearts. His love of peace led him to make many endeavours to conciliate his brethren of the Oratory and the Jesuits, but he found at length that he had less influence over divines than over the hearts of any other species of sinners. He died resident on his diocese, Sept. 28, 1742, at the age of 79. His name has since been almost proverbial in France, where he is considered as a most consummate master of eloquence. Every imaginable perfection is attributed by his countrymen to his style. “What pathos” says one of them, “what knowledge of the human heart What sincere effusions of conviction What a tone of truth, of philosophy, and humanity! What an imagination, at once lively and well regulated Thoughts just and delicate conceptions brilliant and magnificent; expressions elegant, select, sublime, harmonious; images striking and natural; representations just and forcible; style clear, neat, full, numerous, equally calculated to be comprehended by the multitude, and to satisfy the most cultivated hearer.” What can be imagined beyond these commendations? Yet they are given by the general consent of those who are most capable of deciding on the subject. His works were published complete, by his nephew at Paris, in 1745 and 1746, forming fourteen volumes of a larger, and twelve of a smaller kind of 12mo. They contain, 1. A complete set of Sermons for Advent and Lent. 2. Several Funeral Orations, Panegyrics, &c. 3, Ten discourses, known by the name of “Le petit Care'me.” 4. “Ecclesiastical Conferences.” 5. Some excellent paraphrases of particular psalms Massillon once stopped short in the middle of a sermon, from defect of memory; and the same happened from apprehension in different parts of the same day, to two other preachers whom he went to hear. The English method of readitfg their discourses would certainly have been very welcome to all these persons, but the French conceive that all the fire of eloquence would be lost by that method: this, however, seems by no means to be necessary. The most striking passages and beauties of Massiilon’s sermons were collected by the abbe de la Porte, in a volume which is now annexed as a last volume to the two editions of his works; and a few years ago, three volumes of his “Sermons” were translated into English by Mr. William Dickson.

, an eminent English prelate, was the son of John Matthew, a merchant of Bristol, and born in that part of the city which lies in Somersetshire, in 1546. He received the first rudiments of learning in the city of Wells, and at the age of thirteen became a student in the university of Oxford, in the beginning of 1558-9. In Christ Church college he took the degree of bachelor of arts, Feb. 11, 1563, and in June 1566, was made master of arts; about which time he entered into holy orders, and was greatly respected for his learning, eloquence, conversation, friendly disposition, and the sharpness of his wit. On the 2nd of November 1569, he was unanimously elected public orator of the university; which office he filled with great applause. In 1570, he was made canon of the second stall in the cathedral of Christy-church, and November 28 following was admitted archdeacon of Bath. In 1571, he petitioned for his degree of bachelor of divinity, but was not admitted to it for two years. In 1572, he was made prebendary of Teynton-Regis with Yalmeten in the church of Salisbury; and in July following was elected president of St. John’s college, Oxford: at which time, being in high reputation as a preacher, he was appointed one of the queen’s chaplains in ordinary. On December lOth, 175S, he was admitted bachelor of divinity; and next year, May 27, proceeded doctor. On the 14th of June, 1576, being archdeacon at Bath, he was commissioned by archbishop Grindal, with some others, to visit the church, city, and deanry of Bristol. In the same year, he was made dean of Christ-church; and then obtained, from the pen of Camden, the distinguished character of " Theologus praestantissimus/' Camden adds, that learning and piety, art and nature, vied together in his composition. Sir John Harrington is also full of his praises, and even Campian the Jesuit speaks highly of his learning and virtues.

, eldest son of the preceding, and a very singular character, was born at Oxford, in 1578, while his tather was dean of Christ church; and matricuJated in 1589, when only eleven years of age. He was the year after admitted student, and by the advantage of quick parts, and a good tutor, he soon acquired considerable distinction as an orator and disputant. After taking his degrees in arts, he left England in 1605, for such improvement as travelling could confer, and made himself a master of some foreign languages. This journey, however, was much against his father’s inclination, who expressly forbade his going to Italy, suspecting probably what happened when he broke his word and went to that country, where he was converted to popery by the celebrated Jesuit Parsons, to the great grief of his father, who was theu in so distinguished a station in the church. He himself informs us that the first impressions made upon him arose from the devout behaviour of the rustics in the churches abroad, and from being convinced of the reality of the liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius at Naples; but that his complete conversion was reserved for father Parsons, who gave him to read Mr. William Reynolds’ s “Reprehension of Dr. Whitaker,” which he esteemed the most valuable work on wit and humour he had ever seen. It affords, however, no very favourable idea of Mr. Matthew’s conversion, that it was begun by an imposture, and perfected by wit and humour.

, an ancient Christian father, was bishop of Sardis in Asia, and composed several works upon the doctrine and discipline of the church; of which we have nothing now remaining but their titles, and some fragments preserved by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical Hist, book IV. The most valuable of these is part of an humble petition, which he presented to the emperor Marcus Antoninus; in which he beseeches him, “to examine the accusations which were brought against the Christians, and to stop the persecution, by revoking the edict which he had published against them.” He represents to him, that “the Roman, empire was so far from being injured or weakened by Christianity, that its foundation was more firmly established, and its bounds considerably enlarged, since that religion had taken footing in it;” that “the Christian religion had been persecuted by none but the worst emperors, such as Nero and Domitian that Adrian and Antoninus had granted privileges in its favour and that he hoped from his clemency and goodness, that they should obtain the same protection of their lives and properties from him.” This petition was presented, according to Eusebius, in the year 170; but other authors give it the date of 175 or 177, and Dupin 182. Melito died before the pontificate of Victor, probably about the year 192, as we learn from a letter of Polycrates to that pope, where he speaks of Melito as of a man dead, and in the following terms: “What shall I say of Melito, whose actions were all guided by the operations of the Holy Spirit? who was interred at Sardis, where he waits the resurrection and the judgment.” He passed, it seems, for a prophet in his day; that is, for a man inspired by God; according to the testimony of Tertullian, as Jerome represents it. The same Tertullian observes also, that he was an elegant writer and a good orator; which, however, it would not be easy to discover from the fragments that remain of him.

We have many testimonies to the admiration in which he was held during his life-time. Pliny informs us that the kings of Egypt and Macedon gave a noble testimony to his fiierit, by sending ambassadors to invite him to their courts, and even fleets to convey him; but that Menander preferred the free enjoyment of his studies to the promised favours of the great. Yet the envy and corruption of his countrymen sometimes denied his merit the justice athome, which it found abroad; for he is said to have won but eight prices, though he wrote at least fourscore, if not, according to some accounts, above an hundred plays. Philemon, aeontemporary and much inferior dramatic poet, by the partiality the judges, often disappointed him of the prize; which made Menander once say to him, “Tell me fairly, Philemon, if you do not blush when the victory is decreed to you against me” The ancient critics have bestowed the highest praises on Menander, as the true pattern of every beauty and every grace of public speaking. Quintilian declares that a careful imitation of Menander only will enable a writer to comply with all the rules in his Institutions. It is in Menander, that he would have his orator search for copiousness of invention, an elegance of expression, and especially for that universal genius, which is able to accommodate itself to persons, things, and affections. Menander’s wonderful talent at expressing nature in every condition, and under every accident of life, gave occasion to that extraordinary question of Aristophanes the grammarian: “O Menander and Nature, which of you copied your pieces from the other’s work” And Ovid has made choice of the same excellency to support the immortality he has given him:

About the beginning of 1730, was published Tindal’s famous book called “Christianity as old as the Creation:” the design of which was to destroy revelation, and to establish natural religion in its stead. Many writers entered into controversy againsMt, and, among the rest, the wellknown Waterland, who published a “Vindication of Scripture,” &c. Middleton, not lik.ng his manner of vindicating Scripture, addressed, 11. “A letter to him, containing some remarks on it, together with the sketch, or plan, of another answer to TindaPs book,” 1731. Two things, we are told, contributed to make this performance obnoxious to the clergy; first, the popular character of Waterland, who was then at the head of the champions for orthodoxy, yet whom Middleton, instead of reverencing, had ventured to treat with the utmost contempt and severity; secondly, the very free things that himself had asserted, and especially his manner of saying them. His name was not put to the tract, n'or was it known for some time who was the author of it. While Waterland continued to publish more parts of “Scripture vindicated,” &c. Pearce, bishop of Rochester, took up the contest in his behalf; which drew from Middleton, 12. “A Defence of the Letter to Dr. Waterland against the false and frivolous Cavils of the Author of the Reply,” 1731. Pearce replied to this “Defence,” and treated him, as he had done before, as an infidel, or enemy to Christianity in disguise; who, under the pretext of defence, meant nothing less than subversion. Middleton was now known to be the author of the letter; and he was very near being stripped of his degrees, and of all his connections with the university. But this was deferred, upon a promise that he would make all reasonable satisfaction, and explain himself in such a manner, as, if possible, to remove every objection. This he* attempted to do in, 13. “Some Remarks on Dr. Pearce’s second Reply, &c. wherein the author’s sentiments, as to all the principal points in dispute, are fully and clearly explained in the manner that had been promised,” 1732: and he at least effected so much by this piece, that he was suffered to be quiet, and to remain in statu quo; though his character as a divine ever after lay under suspicion, and he was reproached by some of the more zealous clergy, by Venn in particular, with downright apostacy. There was also published, in 1733, an anonymous pamphlet, entitled, “Observations addressed to the author of the Letter, to Dr. Waterland” which was written by Dr. Williams, public orator of the university and to which Middleton replied in, 14. “Some remarks,” &c. The purpose of Williams was to prove Middleton an infidel that his letter ought to be burnt, and himself banished and he then presses him to confess and recant in form.“But,” says Middleton, “I have nothing to recant on the occasion nothing to confess, but the same four articles that I have already confessed first, that the Jews borrowed some of their customs from Egypt secondly, that the Egyptians were possessed of arts and learning in Moses’s time; thirdly, that the primitive writers, in vindicating Scripture, found it necessary sometimes to recur to allegory; fourthly, that the Scriptures are not of absolute and universal inspiration. These are the only crimes that I have been guilty of against religion: and by reducing the controversy to these four heads, and declaring my whole meaning to be comprised in diem, I did in reality recant every thing else, that through heat or inadvertency had dropped from me; every thing that could be construed to a sense hurtful to Christianity.”

“The earl of Sandwich,” says his biographer, “was rather to be considered as an able and intelligent speaker, then a brilliant and eloquent orator. In his early parliamentary career, he displayed uncommon knowledge of the sort of composition adapted to make an impression on a popular assembly; and from a happy choice of words, and a judicious arrangement of his argument, he seldom spoke without producing a sensible effect on the mind of every impartial auditor. In the latter part of his political life, and especially during the American war, his harangues were less remarkable for their grace and ornament, than for sound sense, and the valuable and appropriate information which they communicated. His speeches, therefore, were regarded as the lessons of experience and wisdom. He was never ambitious of obtruding himself upon the house. He had a peculiar delicacy of forbearance, arising from a sense of propriety; which, if more generally practised, would tend very much to expedite the public business by compressing the debates, now usually drawn out to an immeasurable and tiresome length, within more reasonable bounds. If, after having prepared himself on any important question, when he rose in the house any other lord first caught the chancellor’s eye, he sat down with the most accommodating patience; and, if the lord, who spoke before him, anticipated the sentiments which he meant to offer, he either did not speak at all, or only spoke to such points as had not been adverted to by the preceding speaker. Whenever, therefore, he rose, the House was assured that he had something material to communicate: he was accordingly listened to with attention, and seldom sat down without furnishing their lordships with facts at once important and interesting; of which no other peer was so perfectly master as himself. During the period of the American war he was frequently attacked in both houses for his official conduct or imputed malversation. When any such attempts were made in the House of Peers, he heard his accusers with patience, and with equal temper as firmness refuted their allegations, exposing their fallacy or their falsehood. On all such occasions, he met his opponents fairly and openly, in some instances concurring in their motions for papers, which his adversaries imagined would prove him a negligent minister; in others resisting their object, by shewing the inexpediency or the impolicy of complying with their requests. In the parliamentary contest, to which the unfortunate events of the American war gave rise, he is to be found more than once rising in reply to the late earl of Chatham; whose extraordinary powers of eloquence inspired sufficient awe to silence and intimidate even lords of acknowledged ability. Lord Sandwich never in such cases suffered himself to he dazzled by the splendor of oratorical talents; or ever spoke without affording proof that his reply was necessary and adequate. In fact, his lordship never rose without first satisfying himself, that the speaker he meant to reply to was in error; and that a plain statement of the facts in question would dissipate the delusion, and afford conviction to the house. By this judicious conduct his lordship secured the respect of those whom he addressed, and commanded at all times an attentive hearing.”

, was an Italian physician of so much reputation, that he was regarded by his countrymen as a second Galen. He was born at Verona in 1488, of the noble family of Monte in Tuscany, and sent to Padua by his father, to study the civil law. But his bent lay towards physic; which, however, though he made a vast progress in it, so displeased his father, that he entirely withdrew from him all support. He therefore travelled abroad, and practised physic in several cities with success, and increased his reputation among the learned, as an orator and poet. He lived some time at Home, with cardinal Hyppolitus; then removed to Venice; whence, having in a short time procured a competency, he retired to Padua. Here, within two years after his arrival, he was preferred by the senate to the professor’s chair; and he was so attached to the republic, which was always kind to him, that, though tempted with liberal offers from the emperor, Charles V. Francis I. of France, and Cosmo duke of Tuscany, he retained his situation. He was greatly afflicted with the stone in his latter days, and died in 15'5l. He was the author of many works; part of which were published by himself, and part by his pupil John Crato after his death. They were, however, principally comments upon the ancients, and illustrations of their theories; and have therefore ceased to be of importance, since the originals have lost their value. He translated into Latin the works of Aetius, which he published at the desire of cardinal Hyppolitus. He also translated into Latin verse the poem of Museus; and made translations of the Argonautics attributed to Orpheus, and of Lucian’s Tragopodagra.

Montesquieu is said not to have been eager to shew himself to the public, but rather to wait for “an age ripe for writing.” It was not till 1721, when he was thirty-two years of age, that he published his “Persian Letters.” The description of oriental manners, real or supposed, of the prirle and phlegm of Asiatic love, is but the smallest object of these “Letters;” which were more particularly intended as a satire upon French manners, and treat of everai important subjects, which the author investigates rather fully, while he only seems to glance at them. Though this work was. exceedingly admired, yet he did not openly declare himself the author of it. He expresses himself sometimes freely about matters of religion, and therefore as soon as he was known to be the author, he had to encounter much censure and serious opposition, for at that time the philosophizing spirit was not tolerated in France. In 1725, he opened the parliament with a speech, the depth and eloquence of which were convincing proofs of his great abilities as an orator; and the year following he quitted his charge.

In the same year, Montfaucon, who had turned his thoughts to more extensive collections of antiquities than had ever yet appeared, determined to visit Italy for the sake of the libraries, and employed three years in consulting their manuscript treasures. After his return, he published in 1702, an account of his journey and researches, under the title of “Diarium Italicum, sive monumentum veterum, bibliothecarum, musitorum, &c. notitias singulares, itinerario Itaiico collects; additis schematibus et figuris,” Paris, 4to. Of this an English translation was published in 1725, folio, by as great a curiosity as any that father Montfaticon had met with in his travels, the famous orator Henley, who had not, however, at that time disgraced his character and profession. In 1709, Ficorini published a criticism on the “Diarium” which Montfaucon answered in the “Journal des Scavans,” and some time after he met with a defender in a work entitled “Apologia del diario Itaiico,” by father Busbaldi, of Mont-Cassin. During Montfau con’s residence at Rome, he exercised the function of procurator-general of his congregation at that court; and it was also while there, in 1699, that he had occasion to take up his pen in defence of an edition of the works of St. Augustine published by some able men of his order, but which had been attacked, as he thought, very illiberally. His vindication was a 12mo volume, entitled “Vindiciae editionis sancti Augustiui a Benedictis adornata, adversus epistolam abbatis Germani autore D. B. de Hiviere.” The edition referred to is that very complete one by the Benedictions, begun to be published in 1679, at Antwerp, and completed in 1700,11 vols. folio.

, a statesman in the reign of James I. was of an ancient family in Suffolk, and educated a fellow-commoner of Trinity-college, Cambridge, whence he removed to Trinity -hall, and was chosen a fellow. When his uncle, William Asriby, esq. was sent ambassador from queen Elizabeth into Scotland in 1589, he accompanied him, probably in the office of secretary; and was sometimes sent by him on affairs of trust and importance to the court of England, where we find him in July of that year, discontented with his unsuccessful dependance on courtiers, and resolved to hasten back to his uncle, to whom he returned in the beginning of the month following, and continued with him till January 1589, when Mr. Ashby was succeeded in his embassy by Robert Bowes, esq. Mr. Naunton was in France in 15.96 and 1597, whence he corresponded frequently with the earl of Essex, who does not appear to have had interest enough to advance him to any civil post; for which reason it is probable that, after his lordship’s disgrace, Mr. Naunton returned to college, and, in 1601, was elected public orator of the university. Lloyd observes, that his speeches, “both while proctor and orator of Cambridge, discovered him more inclined to public accomplishments than private studies.” A speech which he had to deliver before James I. at Hinchinbroke, is said to have pleased the king very much, and paved the way to his obtaining employment at court. Accordingly he was first made master of the requests, then surveyor of the court of wards, by the interest of sir Thomas Overbury and sir George Villiers, and, in January 1618, was advanced to be secretary of state. He was lastly promoted to be master of the court of wards, which office he resigned in March 1635, and died in the same month. He was buried in the church of Letheringham in Suffolk.

“He died at Lavendon Grange, extremely lamented by all the poor of that neighbourhood, to whom he was a kind benefactor, and by all his friends and acquaintance throughout the kingdom. Upon his death-bed, he ordered all his writings to be destroyed, as his worthy widow informed me; and she was a conscientious person. His friend, Dr t Hunt, advised her to be cautious, and to be sure she did not mistake his meaning, especially with regard to some articles. I also, to whom she paid a favourable regard, presumed to suggest the same caution. How far that good lady proceeded in the proposed destruction of the worthy doctor’s papers, I am not able to say; but do hitherto suppose she reduced them to ashes. Upon a vacancy of the public orator’s place at Oxford, Newton offered himself a candidate; but Digby Cotes, then fellow of All Souls-college, and afterwards principal of Magdalenhall, carried the point against him. Newton’s friends thought him to be by far the more qualified person for that eminent post; though orator Digby was also, I think, a man of worth as well as reputation. Newton survived him. Dr. Newton was well skilled in the modern foreign languages, as well as in the ancient ones of Greece and Rome. A well-polished gentleman, and, at the same time, a sincere Christian. He carried dignity in his aspect, but sweetened with great modesty, humility, and freedom of conversation. This I know, having carefully observed bim, and having always found him even and uniform, both in his temper and in his conduct. One thing comes novr into my mind. Being a guest for a night or two at his house at Lavendon, in the summer-1749, and in my way to Oxford and London, &c. I had much familiar and free discourse with him, and particularly upon the subject of a reasonable reform in some particulars relating to our ecclesiastical establishment a reform, to which he was a hearty welt- wisher. One evening, there being present his worthy vice-principal Mr. Saunders, and an ingenious young gentleman of fortune, a pupil of Saunders, the doctor was pleased to propose to us this question: What share are ifce to allow to Common Sense and Reason in matters of lieKgion? Those two gentlemen and myself being silent, he addressed himself particularly to me, who was, in pqiuT-qf age, superior to them both. I freely answered, that, in my poor opinion, the due exercise of common sense and reason^ and private judgment in all matters of religion, ought to be allowed to all Christians. He said, he was of the same mind. He read prayers in his family at Lavendon, morning and evening, being select parts of the public liturgy. On Wednesdays and Fridays the litany only. He appointed to his studious guests several separate apartments (being parlours) for private study, with pen, ink, and paper, for each, and the use of his library, which was near those apartments, &c. When Pelham was minister, that station corrupted the man, and made him like other ministers; for when he was asked why he did not place, in proper station, the able and meritorious Dr. Newton, he said, `How could I do it? he never asked me' forgetting his tutor. Mr. Pelham more than once employed Dr. Newton to furnish king’s speeches.” His foundation of Hertford-college, for which chiefly he is now remembered, was an unfortunate speculation, ft was preceded by some publications calculated to make known his opinions on academic education. The first of these, which appeared in 1720, was entitled “A Scheme of Discipline, with Statutes intended to be established by a royal charter for the education of youth in Hert-hall;” and in 1725, he drew up the statutes of Hertford -college, which he published in 1747. In 1726, or 1727, he published his “University Education,” which chiefly relates to the removal of students from one college to another, without the leave of their respective governors, or of the chancellor. This appears to have involved him in some unpleasant altercations with his brethren. His application, for a charter to take Hert-hall from under the jurisdiction of Exeter- college, and erect it into an independent college, occasioned a controversy between him and Dr. Conybeare, then rector of Exeter, and afterwards bishop of Bristol and dean of Christ church. In August 1740, however, he obtained the charter for raising Hert-hall into a perpetual college, for the usual studies; the society to consist of a principal, four senior fellows or tutors, eight junior fellows or assistants, eight probationary students, twenty-four actual students, and four scholars. He contributed an annuity of 55l. 6s. Sd. issuing out of his house at Lavendon, and other lands in that parish, to be an endowment for the four senior fellows at the rate of 13l. 6s. Sd. each yearly. He then purchased some houses in the neighbourhood of Hert-hall for its enlargement, and expended about 1500l. on building the chapel and part of an intended new quadrangle. Very few benefactors afterwards appeared to complete the establishment, which, by the aid of independent members subsisted for some years, but has of late gradually fallen off, and it is but within these few months that a successor could be found to the late principal Dr. Bernard Hodgson, who died in 1805. Dr. Newton’s radical error in drawing up the statutes, was his fixing the price of every thing at a maximum, and thus injudiciously overlooking the progress of the markets, as well as the state of society. He seems indeed to have been more intent on establishing a school upon rigid and ceconomical principles, than a college which, with equal advantages in point of education, should keep pace with the growing liberality and refinement of the age. Besides some single sermons, Dr. Newton published in answer to the learned Wharton on pluralities, a volume entitled “Pluralities indefensible,” 1744; and in 1752 issued “Proposals for printing by subscription 4000 copies of the Characters of Theophrastus, for the benefit of Hertford-college;” but this did not appear until a year after his death, when it was published by his successor Dr. William Sharp, in an 8vo volume. The produce to the college is said to have amounted to 1000l., which we much doubt, as the price was only six shillings each copy. In 1784, a volume of his “Sermons” was published by his grandson, S.Adams, LL. B. 8vo.

, one of the most learned authors of ancient Rome after Varro, flourished in the time of Cicero, was his fellow-student in philosophy and the counsellor with whom he advised in affairs of state; and, being praetor and senator, he assisted the orator in defeating the conspiracy of Catiline, and did him many services in the time of his adversity. Cicero acknowledged, that it was in concert with Nigidius, that he took those important measures which saved the commonwealth under his consulship: and, when Cicero went to his government of Cilicia, Nigidius, who was returning to Rome, after having exercised a public employment in Greece, waited for him at Ephesus; where these two friends had long philosophical conferences with Cratippus the Peripatetic. Nigidius was a professed advocate for the doctrine of Pythagoras. Cicero speaks of him as an accurate and penetrating inquirer into nature, and ascribes to him the revival of that philosophy, which formerly, for several ages, flourished in the Pythagorean schools, both in Italy and Sicily. He was a considerable proficient in mathematical and astronomical learning, and, after the example of his master, applied his knowledge of nature to the purposes of imposture. In civil affairs, he attached himself to the party of Pompey; and, upon Caesar’s accession to the supreme power, he was banished from Rome. After his time, the Pythagorean doctrine was much neglected; few persons being then able to decypher, with accuracy, the obscure dogmas of this mysterious sect. Of the impostures practised by Nigidius, there are some anecdotes told, but scarcely worth repeating. It has been thought, that these deceptions were the cause of his banishment; but this appears not to have been the case, nor did he dare to return to Rome after Julius Caesar had possessed himself of that city. He died 45 B. C. His works were entitled, “De Augurio private,” “De Animalibus,” “De Extis,” “De Vento;” and “De Diis.” He also wrote “Commentaries upon Grammar.” Fragments of these only remain, which were collected and published by James Rutgersius, who has also inserted among them the Greek translation of A Treatise of Nigidius," by John Laurentius of Philadelphia.

In March 1756, he married Anne, daughter and co-heir of George Speke, of White Lackington, in the county of Somerset, esq. by whom he had a numerous issue. He was succeeded in titles and estate by his eldest son, George Augustus, who dying without male issue in 1794, was succeeded by his brother Francis, present and fourth earl of Guilford. Of the talents of lord North, much was said during his administration, and it is perhaps his highest praise, that against such a force of opposition, he could act so well upon the defensive. With many personal defects, he contrived to exhibit a species of eloquence which seemed easy and habitual, and always commanded attention. On subjects of finance, his abilities were generally acknowledged^ he reasoned closely and he replied with candour and temper, not unfrequently, however, availing himself of his wit. But as an orator, there were men of far more brilliant talents opposed to him; and as a statesman in general, he cannot be compared to his successor Pitt. He perhaps approaches the nearest to sir Robert Walpole, and like him seldom displayed the commanding energies of mind, but was content to follow the track of official duties, and to defend individual measures, arising out of temporary necessities, without professing any general system applicable to all occasions. But whatever were the errors or defects in lord North’s public conduct,' there lies no impeachment on his integrity. He neither enriched himself nor his family, nor was he ever accused of turning ministerial information. or influence to the purposes of pecuniary emolument. To the last moment of his life, he reviewed his conduct and his principles with satisfaction, and professed his readiness to defend them against any inquiry that could be instituted. What such inquiry can produce, must be the subject of future discovery. All we know at present is, that the moment he resigned, his public accusers became silent.

, a celebrated orator, born July 12, 1587, at Milan, taught the languages and belles lettres, became eminent for his eloquence, and was a long time professor of rhetoric at Padua, where he died July 24, 1631. He left several works in prose and verse: the principal are, 1. “Rornano-Graecia;” 2. “Tractatus de Sepuichris et Epitaphiis Ethnicorum et Christianorum;” 3. “Elogia Scriptorum illustrium” 4. “Orationes” 5, “Epistolarum Libri duo;” 6. Notes and corrections to the “History of the time of Frederic Barbarossa,” written by Morenas, in torn. III. of the Thesaurus Italiae, and to Albert Mussato’s “History of the Emperor Henry VII.” Venice, 1635, fol.; 7. A collection of authors of the history of Padua, &c. Tbeodatus Osius, his brother, also wrote various tracts. This family, which has produced many other distinguished men, boasted of having been eminent from the time of St. Ambrose; and that being driven from Milan for joining the Turriani against the Visconti, they were dispersed over several countries of Europe, even Poland, whither they followed queen Bona Sforza. From this branch, according to their account, descended cardinal Stanislaus Osius, or more properly Hozros, an account of whom may be found under the article Sosius.

, a poet and orator, was born in the fourth century, at Drepanum in Aquitania, but, according to others, at Bourdeaux; or, according to Sidonius, at Agen. He discovered a remarkable taste for poetry from his youth; and Ausonius informs us, wrote love verses. Ausonius adds, that he was equal to Catullus, and surpassed all the Latin poets, except Virgil. Ausonius probably thought all this; for he certainly had a very high opinion of him, dedicated some of his own works to him, and paid the greatest deference to his judgment. Pacatus was sent to Rome in the year 388, to congratulate Theodosius the Great on his victory over the tyrant Maximus; and on this occasion he delivered a panegyric on the emperor in the senate house, for which he was rewarded, in the year 390, with theproconsulship of a province in Africa, and, in the year 393, with the office of superintendant of the imperial domain. We have no farther particulars of his life. None of his poems are extant, and the only proof of his talents to which we can appeal is his panegyric on Theodosius, the second part of which is the most interesting, and gives some curious historical facts. In style and manner he is thought to resemble Seneca or Pliny rather than Cicero. The best edition is that by Arntzenius, Amst. 1753, 4to.

, an English historian, was a Benedictine monk of the congregation of Clugny, in the monastery of St. Alban’s, the habit of which order he took in 1217. He was an universal scholar; understood, and had a good taste both in painting and architecture. He was also a mathematician, a poet, an orator, a divine, an historian, and a man of distinguished probity. Such rare accomplishments and qualities as these, did not fail to place him very high in the esteem of his contemporaries; and he was frequently employed in reforming some monasteries, visiting others, and establishing the monastic discipline in all. He reproved vice without distinction of persons, and did not even spare the English court itself; at the same time he shewed a hearty affection for his country in maintaining its privileges against the encroachments of the pope. Of this we have a clear, though unwilling, evidence in Baronius, who observes, that this author remonstrated with too sharp and bitter a spirit against the court of Rome; and that, except in this particular only, his history was an incomparable work. He died at St. Alban’s in 1259. His principal work, entitled “Historia Major,” consists of two parts: The first, from the creation of the world to William the Conqueror; the second, from that king’s reign to 1250. He carried on this history afterwards to the year of his death in 1259. Rishanger, a monk of the monastery of St. Alban’s, continued it to 1272 or 1273, the year of the death of Henry III. It was first printed at London in 1571, and reprinted 1640, 1684, fol. besides several foreign editions. There are various ms copies in our public libraries, particularly one which he presented to Henry III. and which is now in the British Museum. From Jiis Mss. have also been published “Vitas duorum Offarum, Merciae regum, S, Albani fundatorum” <c Gesta viginti duo abbatum S. Albani“”Additamenta chronicorum ad historian) majorern,“all which accompany the editions of his” Historia Major“printed in 1640 -and 1684. Among his unpublished Mss. are an epitome of his” Historia Major," and a history from Adam to the conquest, principally from Matthew of Westminster. This is in the library of Bene't college, Cambridge. The titles of some other works, but of doubtful authority, may be seen in Bale and Pits.

In 1538 he made a visit to the university, where, after having performed his exercises with general applause, he commenced D. D. In 1542 he was presented by the chapter of Stoke to the rectory of Ashen in Essex, which he resigned in 1544, and was presented to the rectory of Birmingham All Saints, in the county of Norfolk; but his most important promotion that year, was to the mastership of Bene't college, Cambridge, where he had been educated. On this occasion he was recommended to the society by the king, as the fittest person in every respect; and they knowing his character, did not hesitate to elect him, and he was admitted accordingly Dec. 4, 1544. He began his government of the college with making some useful orders concerning certain benefactions and foundations belonging to the college; and, to prevent the college goods from being embezzled, he caused exact inventories of them to be made, and deposited in the common chest, ordering at the same time that they should be triennially inspected and renewed by the master and fellows. Finding likewise their accounts in great confusion, occasioned principally by the neglect of registering them in books belonging to the society, he put them into such a method, that by comparing the rentals, receipts, expenses, &c. together, they might at any time appear as clear as possible, and these he caused to be annually engrossed on parchment for their better preservation. He also undertook the revisal of the statutes, and reduced them to nearly their present form, being assisted in this by his friend Dr. Mey, the civilian, and one of the visitors who confirmed them in the second year of Edward VI. All these regulations and transactions, with some other matters relating both to the college and university, he caused to be registered in a book, called the Black Book, which has ever since been in the custody of the master. The old statutes were indeed once more introduced in the time of queen Mary, but continued no longer in force than to the first year of Elizabeth’s reign, when the former were again revived, and in 1568 finally reviewed, corrected, and approved by her visitors. In 1545 he was elected vice-chancellor, in which office he had an opportunity of exerting himself still farther for the welfare of his college and the university at large; and he gave such satisfaction, that within the space of three years he was elected to the same office. On his election, Dr. Haddon, the public orator, gave him this character to his friend Cheke, “cujus tu gravitatem, consilium, literas, nosti, nos experimur;” adding, “Catonem aut Quintum Fabium renatum putes.”

, an eminent prelate of the sixteenth century, was born at Guild ford, in Surrey, in 1511, and was the son of Mr. George Parkhurst of that place. He was educated there in the grammar school adjoining to Magdalen college gate, under Thomas Robertson, a very famous teacher. He was elected fellow of Merton college in 1529, and three years after, proceeding in arts, entered into holy orders. Anthony Wood says that he was at this time better esteemed for poetry and oratory than divinity. Yet we find him recorded in the life of Jewell, as the tutor of that excellent prelate, who entered of Merton college in 1535, and as “prudently instilling, together with his other learning, those excellent principles into this young gentleman, which afterwards made him the darling and wonder of his age.” Among other useful employments, we find him collating Coverdale and Tindal’s translations of the Bible along with his pupil, of whom he conceived a very high opinion, and on one occasion exclaimed “Surely Paul’s Cross will one day ring of this boy,” a prophecy which was remarkably fulfilled in Jewell’s celebrated sermon there in 1560. Parkhurst, it is true, was a poet and an orator, but he had very early examined the controversy that was about to end in the reformation, and imbibed the spirit of the latter. In 1548, according to a ms note of Baker, he was presented by Thomas lord Seymour to the rich benefice of Bishop’s Cleve in Gloucestershire, which he held three years in commendam, and where he did much good by his hospitality and charity; but the author of Jewell’s life says that he held this living in 1544, and when in that year Jewell commenced master of arts, he bore the charges of it. Nor, says Jewell’s biographer, “was this the only instance wherein he (Jewell) did partake of this good man’s bounty, for he was wont twice or thrice in a year to invite him to his house, and not dismiss him without presents, money, and other things that were necessary for the carrying on his studies. And one time above the rest, coming into his chamber in the morning, when he was to go back to the university, he seized upon his and his companions purses, saying, What mo'ney, I wonder, have these miserable, and beggardly Oxfordians? And finding them pityfully lean and empty, stuffed them with money, till they became both fat and weighty.”

Fouquet, the celebrated superintendant of the finances, who well knew his merit and talents, made him his first clerk and confidant in 1657; and Pellisson, though much to his injury, always preserved the sincerest attachment to him. Two years after, he was made master of the accounts at Montpelier, and had scarcely returned from that place to Paris, when the disgrace of his patron Fouqnet involved him in much trouble, and in 1661 he was sent to the Bastile, and confined there above four years. Though a very strict watch was set over him, he found means to correspond with his friends, and even with Fouquet himself, from whom he also received letters. He used his utmost endeavours, and employed a thousand arts to serve this linister; and he composed in his behalf three famous pleadings, which, Voltaire says, “resemble those of the Roman orator the most of any thing in the French language. They are like many of Cicero’s orations a mixture of judicial and state affairs, treated with an art void of ostentation, and with all the ornaments of an affecting eloquence.” In the mean time, the public was so convinced of his innocence, and he was so esteemed in the midst of his misfortunes, that Tanaquil Faber dedicated his edition of Lucretius to him; and the very day that leave was given to see him, the duke de Montausier, and other persons of the first distinction, went to visit him in the Bastile. He was set at liberty in 1666; and, two years after, had the honour to attend Louis XIV. in his first expedition against the United Provinces, of which he wrote a history. In 1670 he abjured the protestant religion, for which, it is said, he was prepared, during his imprisonment, by reading books of controversy. Voltaire says, “he had the good fortune to be convinced of his errors, and to change his religion at a time when that change opened his way to fortune and preferment.” He took the ecclesiastical habit, obtained several benefices, and the place of master of the requests. The king settled on him a pension of 6000 livres; and, towards 1677, entrusted him with the revenues of some abbeys, to be employed in converting the protestants. He shewed great zeal in this work; but was averse to harsh measures. He published “Reflexions surles differens de la Religion” a new edition of which came out in 1687, augmented with an “Answer to the objections from England and Holland,' 7 in the same language. He employed also his intervals of leisure, for many years, in writing a large controversial volume upon the sacrament; but did not live to finish it, and the world has probably lost little by it. What he wrote on religious subjects does little credit to his pen. Even when he died, which was on Feb. 7, 1693, his religion was a matter of dispute; both papists and protestants claiming him for their own, while a third party thought he had no other religion than what he found necessary at court. He wrote some other works than those mentioned, both in prose and verse, but they have not been in request for many years. A selection, indeed, was published lately (in 1805), at Paris, somewhat in the manner of the compilations which appeared in this country about thirty years ago, under the name of” Beauties."

, a learned divine, was born, according to Fuller, in Sussex, but more probably at Egerton, in Kent, in 1591, and was educated at Magdalen college, Oxford, on one of the exhibitions of John Baker, of Mayfield, in Sussex, esq. Wood informs us that having completed his degree of bachelor by determination, in 1613, he removed to Magdalen-hall, where he became a noted reader and tutor, took the degree of M. A. entered into orders, was made divinity reader of that house, became a famous preacher, a well-studied artist, a skilful linguist, a good orator, an expert mathematician, and an ornament to the society. “All which accomplishments,” he adds, “were knit together in a body of about thirtytwo years of age, which had it lived to the age of man, might have proved a prodigy of learning.” As he was a zealous Calvinist, he may be ranked among the puritans, but he was not a nonconformist. He died while on a visit to his tutor, Richard Capel, who was at this time minister of Eastington, in Gloucestershire, in the thirty-second year of his age, April 14, 1623. His works, all of which were separately printed after his death, were collected in 1 vol. fol. in 1635, and reprinted four or five times; but this volume does not include his Latin works, “De formarum origine;” “De Sensibus internis,” and “Enchiridion Oratorium,” Bishop Wilkins includes Pemble’s Sermons in the list of the best of his age.

, a learned judge, was born in Moorfields, May 16, 1675, and, as the anonymous author of his life says, was baptised by the name of Thomas son of Thomas Pengelly; but others have supposed that he was a natural son of Richard Cromwell the protector, For this supposition we find no other foundation than that Cromwell, who lived very privately in the neighbourhood, had known Mr. Pengelly from his youth, afterwards kept up a friendship with him, and died at his seat at Cheshunt, in August 1712. Mr. Pengelly was brought up to the bar, and becoming eminent in his profession, was made a serjeant May 6, 1710; knighted May 1, 1719, and in June following appointed his majesty’s prime Serjeant at law, on the decease of sir Thomas Powis. He sat as member for Cockermouth, in Cumberland, in the parliaments called in 1714 and 1722. He was made chief baron of the exchequer Oct. 16, 1726, on the death of sir Jeffery Gilbert; and his conduct on the bench corresponded with the high reputation he had acquired at the bar. He died of an infectious fever, caught at Taunton assizes, April 14, 1730. He excelled in profound learning, spirit, justice, and generosity, and dared to offend the most powerful, if he thought their conduct reprehensible. He was a florid, yet convincing orator, an excellent judge, a pious Christian, and an accomplished, sprightly companion. By a humane codicil in his will, dated in 1729, he left a considerable part of his fortune to procure the discharge of persons confined for debt, which was accordingly done by his executor Mr. Webb. There is a copy of this will published in his life, but the name of his residuary legatee is for some reason omitted. The anonymous history of Oliver Cromwell, first printed in 1724, has been supposed to have been written by him, but this is doubtful. It has been also attributed to Dr. Gibson, bishop of London.

Mr. Coxe characterises this nobleman as “a fluent and plausible debater, warm in his friendship, and violent in his enmity.” Lord Orford, after mentioning some of his foibles, among which was a superstitious veneration for the feudal system, says, that, with all these, he. had strong parts, great knowledge of the history of this country, and was a very able, though not an agreeable orator. His domestic virtues more than compensated for some singularities that were very innocent: and had he lived in the age whose manners he emulated, his spirit would have maintained the character of an ancient peer with as much dignity, as his knowledge would have effaced that of others of his order.

Notwithstanding these employments, and the production of some occasional pieces in prose and verse, which they required, he was enabled to publish his edition of Synesius in 1612; but, as he was absent from the press, it suffered much by the carelessness and ignorance of the printers; and even the second edition, of 1631, retains a great many of the errors of the first. It gave the learned, however, an opportunity of knowing what was to be expected from the talents, diligence, and learning, of father Petau; and they entertained hopes which were not disappointed. During the years 1613, 1614, and 1615, he taught rhetoric in the college of La Fleche, in Anjou; and, in the first of these years, he published some works of the emperor Julian, which had hitherto remained in ms. and announced his intention of publishing an edition of Themistius, the Greek orator and sophist. In 1614, when the college of La Flche was visited by Louis XIII. with the queen mother and the whole court, he contributed many of the complimentary verses on the occasion; which, as we shall notice, were afterwards published. In the mean time, he undertook an edition of Nicephorus’s historical abridgment, which had never been printed either in Greek or Latin. In this he was assisted with the copy of a valuable manuscript, which father Sjrmond sent to him from Rome. In 1617, the Biblical professor of La Flche being removed to another charge, Petau supplied his place, until called to Paris by order of his superiors, to be professor of rhetoric. It was about this time that he was attacked by that violent fever, which he has so well described in his poem entitled “Soteria;” a circumstance scarcely worth mentioning, if it had not been connected with an instance uf superstition, which shews that his father’s prejudices had acquired possession of his mind. During this fever, and when in apparent danger, his biographer tells us, he made a vow to St. Genevieve, and the fever left him. The object of his vow was a tribute of poetical thanks to his patroness and deliverer. In order to perform this as it ought to be performed, he waited until his mind had recovered its tone but he waited too long, and the fever seized him again, as a re- 1 membrance of his neglect. Again, however, St. Genevieve restored him; and, that he might not hazard her displeasure any more, he published his “Soteria,” in 1619, which the connoisseurs of that time thought his chef (Taeuvre in poetry; and his biographer adds, that “it is in Virgil only we can find lines so completely Virgilian.” The remainder of his life was spent in performing the several offices of his order, or in those publications, a list of which will prove the magnitude of his labours. He died at Paris, December 11, 1652, in the sixtyninth year of his age. He seems, by the general consent, not only of the learned men of his communion, but of many Protestants, to have been one of the greatest scholars the Jesuits can boast: and would have appeared in the eyes of posterity as deserving of the highest character, had not his turn for angry controversy disgraced his style, and shown, that with all his learning and acuteness, he did not rise superior to the bigotry of his time. We have a striking instance of this, in his connection with Grotius. He had, at first, such a good opinion of that illustrious writer, as to think him a Roman Catholic in heart; and on his death, said a mass for his soul; but some time after, writing to cardinal Barberini, he uses these remarkable words: “I had some connection with Hugo Grotius, and I wish I could say he is nmc happy /”

These researches were not very successful. Three decades of Livy, thq first, third, and fourth, were, at that time, all which could be found. The second decade was sought in vain. A valuable work of Varro, and other productions which he had seen in his youth, were irrecoverably lost. With Quintilian he was more fortunate, though the copy which he discovered was mutilated and imperfect. Cicero was his idol, yet his collection of the works of this great orator was very incomplete, although he had the happiness to make some new discoveries, particularly of his 46 Familiar Epistles.“He was once possessed of Cicero’s work,” De Gloria;“but he lent it to a friend, and it was irreparably lost. He often employed himself in making transcripts of ancient authors; by which his eager thirst was allayed, and accurate copies multiplied. But neither Rome, nor the remains of Roman literature, were sufficient totally to absorb the attention of this active man. Greece also engaged his thoughts. The study of the Greek language had at no time been completely neglected; and when an occasion of learning it offered, Petrarch prosecuted it with his usual zeal. But he never” wholly surmounted its difficulties; for, when a present of a Greek Homer was sent him from Constantinople, he lamented his inability to taste its beauties, although his joy on receiving such a present was not less sincere. Such were the pursuits by which he rendered services of the greatest importance to literature, and which made him to be so esteemed and honoured. He was, indeed, considering the times in which he lived, in all respects a very extraordinary man; and it is not without reason, that his countrymen still entertain a profound veneration for his memory. He has also been the object of the admiration and inquiries of scholars in all countries; and his writings have been printed so often, that it becomes impossible, and perhaps would not be very useful, to enumerate half the editions, comments, and criticisms, with which his poems, in particular, have been honoured. He is said to have had twenty-five biographers, exclusive of the sketches of his life given in collections. Of these, the most copious is the work of the abbe“de Sade, and the most necessary to illustrate that important part of Petrarch’s life which relates to his connexion with Laura, is Lord Woodhouselee’s” Historical and Critical Essay of the Life and character of Petrarch," 1810, 8vo.

, or Freas, an English writer, celebrated by Leland as one of those who were the first to raise their country from barbarism, was born in London, towards the close of the fourteenth or the beginning of the fifteenth century. He was educated at Oxford, and became fellow of Baliol -college. After taking holy orders, he settled as minister of St. Mary’s church on the Mount, in the city of Bristol; where he pursued the studies for which he had made himself famous at the university. Many merchants being at that time going from Bristol to Italy, his curiosity was excited by the learning which he was told abounded in that country, and particularly by the fame of Guarini, an old philosopher and orator, who taught at Ferrara. To him he went, attended his lectures, studied under him the knowledge of medical herbs, and, by an odd assortment, the civil law, and gained the esteem of many of the learned there; so as with great applause to read medical lectures, first at Ferrara, and afterwards at Florence and Padua; in which latter place he obtained the degree of doctor. He also visited Rome, and there met with John Tiptoft, earl of Worcester, then absent from his country, on account of the civil wars prevailing between the houses of York and Lancaster. Phreas wrote “Epistles,” and “Poems;” some of which he dedicated to his patron Tiptoft. To him also he dedicated a Latin translation of “Synesius de laude Calvitii.” Basil, 1521, and translated into English by Abraham Flemming, Loud. 1579. Phreas translated also into Latin, the history of “Diodorus Siculus,” which was by some falsely attributed to Poggius. Leland mentions that he had seen a copy, in the Brst leaf of which a later pen had written, “Paul (II). the Roman pontiff, on account of this translation, which was dedicated to him by Phreas, gave him the bishopric of Bath, which presentation he survived only one month, and died at Rome in 1465, before he was consecrated.' 7 Leland adds, that some supposed him to have been poisoned by a person who was a competitor for that appointment. The same author subjoins, that he had seen a book,” de rebus Geographicis," which he, from various circumstances, collected to have been written by Phreas. He speaks also of an elegant epitaph composed by him for the tomb of Petrarch. He was much praised by Omnibonus Leonicenus, and Rhenanus, particularly for his version of Synesius, and in general for his great learning. According to Leland, he was reported to have made a great deal of money by practising physic in Italy, and to have died rich. Some epistles of Phreas are still extant in ms. in the Bodleian and in Baliol college libraries, which, Warton says, discover an uncommon terseness and facility of expression.

The principal outlines of lord Chatham’s character, sagacity, promptitude, and energy, will be perceived in the foregoing narrative. The peculiar powers of his eloquence have been characterized since his death in language which will convey a forcible idea of it to every reader. “They who have been witnesses to the wonders of his eloquence, who have listened to the music of his voice, or trembled at its majesty; who have seen the persuasive gracefulness of his action, or have felt its force; they who have caught the flame of eloquence from his eye, who have rejoiced in the glories of his countenance, or shrunk from his frowns, will remember the resistless power with which he impressed conviction. But to those who have never seen or heard this accomplished orator, the utmost effort of imagination will be necessary, to form a just idea of that combination of excellence, which gave perfection to his eloquence. His elevated aspect, commanding the awe and mute attention of all who beheld him, while a certain grace in his manner, arising from a consciousness of the dignity of his situation, of the solemn scene in which he acted, as well as of his own exalted character, seemed to acknowledge and repay the respect which he received.—This extraordinary personal dignity, supported on the basis of his well-earned fame, at once acquired to his opinions an assent, which is slowly given to the arguments of other men. His assertions rose into proof, his foresight became prophecy.—No clue was necessary to the labyrinth illuminated by his genius. Truth came forth at his bidding, and realised the wish of the philosopher: she was seen, and beloved.”—We have omitted some parts of this spirited character because not written with equal judgment: but the result of the whole is, that while he sought, with indefatigable diligence, the best and purest sources of political information, he had a mind which threw new lights upon every topic, and directed him with more certainty than any adventitious aid. Another account of his extraordinary powers, more concise, but drawn with wonderful spirit, is attributed to the pen of Mr. Wilkes. “He was born an orator, and from nature possessed every outward requisite to bespeak respect, and even awe. A manly figure, with the eagle eye of the famous Condé, fixed your attention, and almost commanded reverence the moment he appeared; and the keen lightnings of his eye spoke the high spirit of his soul, before his lips had pronounced a syllable. There was a kind of fascination in his look when he eyed any one askance. Nothing could withstand the force of that contagion. The fluent Murray has faultered, and even Fox (afterwards lord Holland) shrunk back appalled, from an adversary, ‘ fraught with fire unquenchable,’ if I may borrow the expression of our great Milton. He had not the correctness of language so striking in the great Roman orator (we may add, and in his son), but he had the verba ardentia, the bold glowing words.”—Lord Chesterfield has given a more general picture of his character, in the following words: “Mr. Pitt owed his rise to the most considerable post and power in this kingdom, singly to his own abilities. In him they supplied the want of birth and fortune, which latter, in others too often supply the want of the former. He was a younger brother, of a very new family, and his fortune was only an annuity of one hundred pounds a-year. The army was his original destination, and a cornetcy of horse his first and only commission in it. Thus unassisted by favour or fortune, he had no powerful protector to introduce him into business, and (if I may use that expression) to do the honours of his parts; but their own strength was fully sufficient. His constitution refused him the usual pleasures, and his genius forbid him the idle dissipations of youth; for so early as at the age of sixteen he was the martyr of an hereditary gout. He therefore employed the leisure which that tedious and painful distemper either procured or allowed him, in acquiring a great fund of premature and useful knowledge. Thus by the unaccountable relation of causes and effects, what seemed the greatest misfortune of his life, was perhaps the principal cause of its splendor. His private life was stained by no vice, nor sullied by any meanness. All his sentiments were liberal and elevated. His ruling passion was an unbounded ambition, which, when supported by great abilities, and crowned with great success, makes what the world calls a great man. He was haughty, imperious, impatient of contradiction, and overbearing; qualities which too often accompany, but always clog great ones. He had manners and address, but one might discover through them too great a consciousness of his own superior talents. He was a most agreeable and lively companion in social life, and had such a versatility of wit, that he would adapt it to all sorts of conversation. He had also a most happy turn to poetry, but he seldom indulged, and seldom avowed it. He came young into parliament, and upon that theatre he soon equalled the oldest and the ablest actors. His eloquence was of every kind, and he excelled in the argumentative, as well as in the declamatory way. But his invectives were terrible, and uttered with such energy of diction, and such dignity of action and countenance, that he intimidated those who were the most willing and best able to encounter him. Their arms fell out of their hands, and they shrunk under the ascendant which his genius gained over theirs.” As a proof of this wonderful power, it is related that sir Robert Walpole scarcely heard the sound of his voice in the House of Commons, when he was alarmed and thunder-struck. He told his friends, that he would be glad at any rate, “to muzzle that terrible cornet of horse.” That minister would have promoted his rise in the army, if he would have given up his seat in the house.

, second son of the preceding, and his legitimate successor in political talents and celebrity, was born May 28, 1759. He was educated at home under the immediate eye of his father, who, as he found him very early capable of receiving, imparted to him many of the principles which had guided his own political conduct, and in other respects paid so much attention to his education that at the age of fourteen, he was found fully qualified for the university; and accordingly, was then entered of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, where he was distinguished alike for the closeness of his application, and for the success of his efforts, in attaining those branches of knowledge to which his studies were particularly directed; nor have many young men of rank passed through the probation of an university with a higher character for morals, abilities, industry, and regularity. He was intended by his father for the bar and the senate, and his education was regulated so as to embrace both these objects. Soon after he quitted the university, he went to the continent, and passed a short time at Rheims, the capital of Champagne. The death of his illustrious father, while he was in his 19th year, could not fail to cast a cloud over the prospects of a younger son, but the foundation was laid of those qualities which would enable him to clear the path to eminence by his own exertions. He had already entered himself a student of Lincoln’s Inn, and as soon as he was of age, in 1780, he was called to the bar, went the western circuit once, and appeared in a few causes as a junior counsel. His success during this short experiment was thought to be such as was amply sufficient to encourage him to pursue his legal career, and to render him almost certain of obtaining a high rank in his profession. A seat in parliament, however, seems to have given his ambition its proper direction, and at once placed him where he was best qualified to shine and to excel. At the general election in 1780, he had been persuaded to offer himself as a candidate to represent the university of Cambridge, but finding that his interest would not be equal to carry the election, he declined the contest, and in the following year was, through the influence of sir James Lowther, returned for the borough of Appleby. This was during the most violent period of political opposition to the American war, to which Mr. Pitt, it may be supposed, had an hereditary aversion. He was also, as most young men are, captivated by certain theories on the subject of political reform, which were to operate as a remedy for all national disasters. Among others of the more practical kind, Mr. Burke had, at the commencement of the session, brought forward his bill for making great retrenchments in the civil list. On this occasion Mr. Pitt, on the 26th of February, 1781, made his first speech in the British senate. The attention of the house was naturally fixed on the son of the illustrious Chatham, but in a few moments the regards of the whole audience were directed to the youthful orator on his own account. Unembarrassed by the novelty of the situation in which he had been so lately placed, he delivered himself with an ease, a grace, a richness of expression, a soundness of judgment, a closeness of argument, and a classical accuracy of language, which not only answered, but exceeded, all the expectations which had been formed of him, and drew the applauses of both parties. During the same and the subsequent session, he occasionally rose to give his sentiments on public affairs, and particularly on parliamentary reform. This he urged with an enthusiasm which he had afterwards occasion to repent; for when more mature consideration of the subject, had convinced him that the expedient was neither safe nor useful, he was considered as an apostate from his early professions. As a public speaker, however, it was soon evident that he was destined to act a high part on the political stage; yet, although he seemed to go along generally with the party in opposition to lord North, he had not otherwise much associated with them, and therefore when, on the dissolution of lord North’s, a new one was formed, at the head of which was the marquis of Rockingham, Mr. Pitt’s name did not appear on the list. Some say he was not invited to take a share; others, that he was offered the place of a lord of the treasury, which he declined, either from a consciousness that he was destined for a higher station, or that he discerned the insecurity of the new ministers. Their first misfortune was the death of the marquis of Rockingham, which occasioned a fatal breach of union between them, respecting the choice of a new head. Of this the earl of Shelburne availed himself, and in July 1782, having, with a part of the former members, been appointed first lord of the treasury, associated Mr. Pitt, who had just completed his 23d year, as chancellor of the exchequer. A general peace with America, France, Spain, &c. soon followed, which was made a ground of censure by a very powerful opposition; and in April 1783, the famous coalition ministry took the places of those whom they had expelled. Mr. Pitt, during his continuance in office, had found little opportunity to distinguish himself, otherwise than as an able defender of the measures of administration, and a keen animadverter upon the principles and conduct of his antagonists; but a circumstance occurred which constitutes the first great æra in his life. This, indeed, was the eventual cause not only of his return to office, but of his possession of a degree of authority with the king, and of popularity with the nation, which has rarely been the lot of any minister, and which he preserved, without interruption, to the end of his life, although his character was supposed to vary in many respects from the opinion that had been formed of it, and although he was never known to stoop to the common tricks of popularity. The coalition administration, of which some notice has been taken in our accounts of Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox, was, in its formation, most revolting to the opinions of the people. Its composition was such as to afford no hopes of future benefit to the nation, and it was therefore narrowly watched as a combination for self-interest. While the public was indulging such suspicions, Mr. Fox introduced his famous bill for the regulation of the affairs of India, the leading provision of which was to vest the whole management of the affairs of the East India company, in seven commissioners named in the act, and to be appointed by the ministry. It was in vain that this was represented as a measure alike beneficial to the company and to the nation; the public considered it as trenching too much on the prerogative, as creating a mass of ministerial influence which would be irresistible, and as rendering the ministry too strong for the crown. Mr. Pitt, who, in this instance, had rather to follow than to guide the public opinion, unfolded the hidden mystery of the vast mass of patronage which this bill would give, painted in the most glowing colours its danger to the crown and people on one hand, and to the company on the other, whose chartered rights were thus forcibly violated. The alarm thus becoming general, although the bill passed the House of Commons by the influence which the ministers still possessed in that assembly, it was rejected in the House of Lords.